I understand it, too — and the reactionary in me (the one who was thrown out of two different restaurants in the 1970s for sitting too close to my then-gf in a group of obvious dykes) wants to snark, “Yeah, see how it feels!” — but the sensible adult in me wouldn’t ban them at all; instead, I’d go with the petition idea employed by D.C.’s Town Danceboutique. Much smarter, and far more productive:
Long list, via email (many thanks, you-know-who-you-are!), massaged for organization & clarity, with live links added:
ARIZONA
Phoenix, Arizona: Gather at 6pm at the southwest corner of Camelback at 7th Avenue for a rally and then march. For more information, contact John Allard at arizona@marriageequality.org
CALIFORNIA
Auburn, California: Gather at 5:30pm at the Placer County Courthouse (101 Maple Street). For more information, contact ca-placer@marriageequality.org
How things change in two years — and we’re happy to confirm that Marie Osmond is no longer suffering guilt-ridden icks about her daughter Jessica — although it’s not lost on us that it appears to have taken a jab from The Globe for Marie to actually step up to the plate and endorse “civil rights … for all,” which she did indeed, in a phone call to L.A.’s KOST 103.5:
CHICAGO — January 13, 2009 — During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for gay marriage, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper.
President-elect Obama’s answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” There was no use of the phrase “civil unions”. [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]
This answer is among those included in this week’s Windy City Times feature on Obama’s evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.
During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.
Outlines summarized the results in that 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama was a supporter of same-sex marriage and that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. Just recently, the original Outlines and IMPACT surveys were found in the newspaper’s archives.
More recently, as Obama has run for higher office, from U.S. senate to president, he has further shaped his views on marriage, and now he does not back same-sex marriage, but favors civil unions.
The Jan. 14 Windy City Times has articles by Publisher and Executive Editor Tracy Baim looking at Obama’s marriage record, including from a 2004 interview she conducted with the U.S. senate hopeful, and also an article by Timothy Stewart-Winter, a doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago, who is writing his dissertation on lesbian and gay politics in Chicago. Stewart-Winter provides a look at the context of Obama’s race in 1996 against incumbent Alice Palmer.
The full articles and copies of the Outlines and IMPACT 1996 questionnaires are available online at www.windycitymediagroup.com starting Jan. 14, and at hundreds of Chicago-area delivery locations.
In case you haven’t heard, the feds busted Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. If you have heard, and you want to know what the hell happened without trying to piece it together from Rick Sanchez’s typically breathless-with-excitement-but-without-much-substance updates on CNN, hit the transcript of Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference for the full story.
In a nutshell, Blagojevich (”and others”) sold political favors (think: kickbacks and shakedowns), apparently increasing the dirty dealing after he knew he was under investigation by the FBI.
But wait! There’s more!
“The most appalling conduct Governor Blagojevich engaged in, according to the complaint filed today or unsealed today, is that he attempted to sell a Senate seat, the Senate seat he had the sole right to under Illinois to appoint to replace President-elect Obama.”
* low whistle *
Jack Cafferty summed up Blagojevich best just a minute ago: “He’s an arrogant punk who thinks he’s bulletproof.”
As thrilled as we are to hear that X-thousand people came out in San Francisco and New York and Chicago for Saturday’s nationwide Proposition 8 protests, we’re even more impressed by the smaller cities and towns where a hundred people, or just a dozen, gay and straight, braved brutal climates, of both the environmental and the anti-gay varieties. It’s not easy to stand on a street corner and absorb the hate even when you’ve got 2,000 people on your side; we can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to do the same thing when your group numbers a few dozen — or just a few.
So, let’s look at a quick rundown of the best numbers I could find for the “big” protests, and then take a moment to appreciate some brave souls who took up the mantle of equality for all in places you might least expect anyone to do it.
The Big Protests: 2,000 People or More
New York - ? (I’ve heard everything from 4,000 on up.)
Several dozen protested in downtown Anchorage Saturday afternoon. …
Alaska was the first state in the nation to constitutionally ban gay marriage, back in 1998, when voters approved the change by a more than a two-to-one margin.
About 25 gay rights advocates held up signs in front of Fairbanks City Hall…
Voters in Alaska approved a ban on gay marriage 10 years ago.
An Army wife organized the gathering in Fairbanks, which started at 9:30 a.m. and involved waving signs in front of passing motorists on Cushman Street.
One sign read, “Love is love.” Another: “Equal rights for all.” A man held a sign saying, “I am Sarah Palin’s gay friend.”
Kristen Magann, the organizer, described herself as heterosexual, happily married and a believer that sexual preference should not determine civil rights.
“I want to make this message heard,” she stated in an e-mail, “that all people no matter their sexual orientation should be allowed the same rights under the law.”
More than 100 people rallied on the corners of East Magnolia Street and Cornwall Avenue in Bellingham the morning of Saturday, Nov. 15, to protest California’s recent ban on gay marriage.
Chants of “It’s about love not hate,” and “Hey mister president, what do you say, don’t hate families because they’re gay” filled blocks of downtown Bellingham during the two-hour protest. …
The protesters in Bellingham were outside the Federal Building from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. A smaller group continued the protest outside the Bellingham Farmer’s Market after noon.
The ironic marquee of the Empress Theatre on Virginia Street served as an appropriate backdrop to a Proposition 8 protest Saturday night.
On one level of the marquee, the Empress Theatre advertised an upcoming gay and lesbian night, while one line below it advertised the Latter-day Saints Concert series.
The Saturday concert was what prompted about 75 people to gather in front of the theater chanting and demanding a return of same-sex marriage rights that the passage of Prop. 8 eliminated.
Solano County is the only Bay Area county where voters approved Prop. 8.
About 75 people showed up to a Fairfield rally organized by Fairfield High School student Crystal Nievera, 16.
“Not everyone voted yes on 8 (in Solano County),” said Nievera, who feared a small showing based on what her Facebook group told her.
The protesters met at Fairfield City Hall and marched to Solano County Municipal Court, where they would be more visible on busy Texas Street.
The young organizer invoked the spirit of slain Fairfield councilman Matt Garcia, a strong supporter of youth before he was gunned down in September at age 22.
“This is why today, I’m trying to make a difference,” Nievera said.
Toni Pinck stood quietly next to Chauvin, holding a “No on Prop. 8” sign. Her son was married in San Francisco Aug. 15.
“I’m here to show support for people that are still fighting for their civil rights,” she said. “I wouldn’t have been able to vote for Proposition 8 if it weren’t for people who fought for the woman’s right to vote many years ago.”
Marina Martinez and Evelyn Iraheta, also Tracy residents, were married Oct. 24 in Stockton. They said they thought their neighbors were supportive of their marriage before Proposition 8 was introduced in June, until the “Yes on 8” signs began to appear. …
Demonstrators also took to the streets of Salinas against Prop 8. The Salinas march happened to take place on the same day an event at Hartnell College called for the strengthening of families.
. . .
The latest returns in Monterey County show the Proposition 8 race was much closer, than Santa Cruz County. No on 8 collected 52% of the total vote.
Young gay students, middle-aged white and Latino couples and community activists came together Saturday on the city’s streets to protest passage of Proposition 8. …
“We are here because we need to remind people we live in a nation under civil law and Prop. 8 forces some to live according to the religious views of others,” said Randall Lopez, an organizer with the Inland Empire Human Rights Coalition, which held the local protest. …
On Saturday morning, about 30 people gathered in front of Colton City Hall to kick off the rally. …
Nicolas Daily, 19, of Redlands, who described himself as a gay black man, stood high on the steps urging the group to join him in singing “Let it Be” and “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”
“I honestly just want people to know this is not going to go away,” he said. “We are going to be out here until we get our rights.”
Cherie Stevens, Mother of gay son: “We want our son to have the very same rights as his straight brothers.”
Cherie and her husband were among a group of 60 individuals at the Bonneville County Courthouse who all wanted to make their voices and opinions heard. They say our country was founded on the idea of equality and will now just take some time before this rings true for everyone.
Jamee Greer took charge of a sizable crowd that united and protested Saturday in favor of gay marriage rights, a group pulled together in Missoula by the Internet and text messages.
He gave the group its marching orders, announcing the rules of the road, as the protesters carried signs and prepared to march from North Higgins Avenue to the Missoula County Courthouse.
“This is about basic human rights and civil rights not being met here at home in Montana,” said Greer…
In Missoula, Brian Cook wore a picture of his 21-year-old gay son, Andrew Sullivan-Cook, who was in Dallas marching with Join the Impact protesters. “I’m here, not only in support of my son’s rights, but it’s simply the right thing to do,” said Cook. “Even if my son wasn’t gay, I’d be here.”
Cook said his daughter, and 15-month-old grandson, would be marching in Dallas alongside his son.
About 65 people are gathered in front of Grand Forks’s Town Square this afternoon to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California…
The group first came together at about 12:30 p.m. in front of Grand Forks City Hall. The protest is part of a nationwide event in 300 cities, according to jointheimpact.com. The Grand Forks event is scheduled to run until 3:30 p.m.
At about 1:30 p.m., the group left their spot in front to move to Town Square at the corner of DeMers Avenue and Third Street.
Horns were honking for several hours early Saturday afternoon, supporting about 120 gay rights activists with signs and flags who were protesting the recent approval of California’s Proposition 8. …
There were many supportive honks throughout the afternoon, said John McClelland, president of the Stonewall Democrats of Denton County, a gay and lesbian political organization.
Jack Harnstrom and Jon Hill have been partners for 14 years, but when California was set to vote on banning same-sex marriages, the Duluth residents raced to Palm Spring, Calif., to be wed.
Their wedding ceremony was Nov. 3, a day before California voted to take away that right. On Saturday afternoon, the couple joined about 75 others at a gay rights rally against California’s Proposition 8 at Lake Avenue and Superior Street in downtown Duluth.
More than 120 people lined the street in front of the Federal Building Saturday afternoon to protest the recent passage of a California ballot proposal banning same-sex marriage.
Signs reading “Stop the Hate” and “Equal Rights for All” attracted honks as passing motorists showed support. The crowd stretched nearly a full block along West Michigan Avenue.
They were among about 100 people who attended the rally in front of MSU Auditorium.
Organized by MSU Alliance of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered and Straight Ally Students, the protest was one of hundreds that took place Saturday nationwide.
Among the nationwide turnouts Saturday was a gathering of about 40 people at the corner of Main and University streets in Peoria. The group protested the decision that affected an estimated 18,000 California couples seeking the legal distinction. …
“This is a more conservative area, and we know that. Everybody knows someone who is gay. A lot of times it’s just not talked about. But we still participate in the homeowners’ associations, or neighborhood watch groups. … We buy Girl Scout cookies from neighbors’ kids.
“I do what I can to support my neighbors and their families. Why not support me and my family, my relationship?”
University students and Champaign-Urbana families took to the streets Saturday to protest the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California which bans gay marriage. …
The event in Campustown was sponsored by the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resources and was organized by Brooke Elliot, senior in Education, and Virginia McCreary, graduate student.
Elliot said they planned a protest on campus because many people were not able to get to Chicago for its protest. …
About 80 protestors stood on the corners with colorful signs. Some cars driving down Green Street honked in support of the cause.
At 1 p.m. the protestors had a moment of silence which was broken by a car honking in support of the protest. The protestors then marched down Green Street to Fourth Street and back again shouting their message and waving their signs.
The protestors were met with little resistance.
On two occasions, groups of students walking past the protestors made remarks in opposition of the protest.
One worker at Potbelly Sandwich Works opened the door as the protestors were walking past and said, “Good job guys!”
Every time a car honked, they cheered. A group of about 20 people stood at the corner of Main Street and Jefferson Boulevard in downtown South Bend on Saturday, waving signs in support of same-sex marriage. …
“It sets a precedent,” said Mandy Studdard, who helped organize the South Bend rally. “People say ‘If the rest of the country doesn’t want this, why should we have it here?’ We’ve got to set a different precedent. That’s not how it’s supposed to be.”
About 50 people protested in Jackson outside the state capitol…
“[W]hen people see protests happening around the country, they’ll understand that this isn’t just an issue that’s happening somewhere else, this is an American issue happening everywhere, because it affects all of us,” organizer Brent Cox said.
A mixed group of students and local activists marched in protest today as part of a national day of action against the passage of California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Nearly 100 students and residents joined for a march from the drill field around campus and back chanting slogans, bearing signs and waving and cheering at passing cars.
“We’re in southwest Virginia, we want to improve the LGBT community’s visibility and we want people here to know we exist,” said organizer Tami Grossman.
About 35 people gathered in front of Greenville City Hall on Saturday afternoon to protest voter passage of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that reversed a state supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage. …
The group protested peacefully and without incident, displaying signs and flags representing gay pride. They sang songs of protest, led by Georgia Winfree, of the group Someone’s Sister, then marched together along Fifth Street where an occasional passing car honked in response.
In Macon on Saturday, more than 50 advocates for Join the Impact, an international organization supporting equal rights for people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, protested the California Proposition 8 vote outside City Hall.
Protesters waved signs reading “What Would Martin Do?” “Fight the H8” and “Would You Rather I Marry Your Daughter?” …
“Today’s protest is a small piece of the puzzle,” said Alex Webb, organizer of the Macon rally. “This started off as an online movement and has become a national and international phenomenon. There are people in London standing with us right now … standing with us against our treatment as second-class citizens, standing for equal rights for all.”
150 people came out on a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon to show support for same-sex marriage and solidarity with gay and lesbian people in California. …
Protesters gathered at the corner of Elmwood Avenue and Bidwell Parkway with signs that advocated equality under state marriage laws for all people. The event began at 1:30pm and also featured remarks by local activist Kitty Lambert and New York State Assembly member Sam Hoyt.
Standing on the steps of City Hall, more than 70 gay men, lesbians and their supporters yesterday protested a California vote banning same-sex marriage and called for all states to provide civil marriage “equality.” …
A steady stream of drivers crawling across usually crowded Main Street honked their horns in support of the crowd. Many drivers yelled out “Yes” and “Way to go” or waved their fists in solidarity. For at least the first hour of the demonstration, no passers-by said or did anything in opposition to the gay-marriage cause.
“Westchester is a very, very affirming place to live,” said Scott Havelka of Rye Brook, interim executive director of The Loft, a gay community services center in White Plains, which supported the rally.
About 100 supporters of marriage equality for same-sex couples stood in a steady drizzle outside Burlington City Hall on Saturday to register their disappointment with the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote in California Nov. 4.
Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force field director Robyn Maguire rallied the crowd, insisting that Vermont could do better than California.
“We want Vermont to reclaim its role in this important civil rights issue,” Maguire said. “It’s been eight years and it’s time for us to move forward. Now more than ever does Vermont matter.”
Gay marriage proponents united Saturday in grass-roots protests around the country — including one in Market Square. …
“It’s a matter of equality,” said Forest Stone, a Portsmouth resident, as she stood in the rain Saturday among nearly 100 other sign-touting, umbrella-gripping demonstrators.
Like dozens of others, Stone and her 6-year-old daughter Annalie both held bright signs facing traffic in front of the North Church, while some people in passing cars encouraged the efforts with honks and shouts.
“We’re small but mighty,” said protest organizer Jennifer Rowe today.
Rowe, along with Amanda Zuke, Kyle Cardoza, Liz Laplante and two other concerned citizens, gathered outside Sault Ste. Marie’s Civic Centre to protest the recent adoption of California’s Proposition 8, outlawing same-sex marriage.
“We’re here to show our support for those in the United States who are fighting to get same-sex marriage recognized and for human rights across the board,” Rowe told SooToday.com. …
“The battle may have been fought and won in Canada to allow people to marry whoever they want, but being respected just as another human being is still a problem,” said Rowe. “There’s still a long way to go in some cases.” …
Rowe says she’s already started planning something to happen locally in support of Join the Impact’s fight.
Fine overview and commentary. The real message: Get out on the streets with us, people!
Video after the jump.
“Following Saturday night’s successful protest against California Proposition 8 leader James Dobson, when some 500+ came out despite miserable weather, Chicago LGBT activists have set a follow-up protest for 12:30 PM, Saturday, November 15th at the Federal Plaza, corner of Adams and Dearborn Streets, Chicago.
“Chicago’s protest is part of a nationwide series of simultaneous protests at precisely the same hour on that day — in over 80 cities and in all 50 states — coordinated through the website JoinTheImpact.com.
“Although last Tuesday’s vote in California prompted officials in that state to cease issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it’s an open question whether the Supreme Court in that state will confirm the ballot referendum or throw it out. Officially, their decision will probably hinge on a legal technicality — whether or not the referendum language broke a vaguely worded provision of the state constitution that says that referenda cannot be overly-broad in the matters they cover.
“However, the real reason for the court’s decision will probably have much more to do with the amount of protest heat that LGBT people and our allies can generate outside of the courtrooms. While courts are always loath to admit that public protest influences their decisions, some of the most important progressive decisions have in fact been the direct results of such public protest. A large women’s movement in the streets of America made the Nixon-packed, anti-abortion US Supreme Court give us the Roe v. Wade pro choice decision in the 1970s, and during the 1930s, once protests picked up a sufficient head of steam in the middle of the Great Depression, the heretofore conservative court ceased stonewalling President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs.
“Saturday’s nationwide protests are aimed at pressuring the California Supreme Court to reaffirm its earlier pro-gay decision and restore the state’s reputation as a beacon for progressives elsewhere. Also on the agenda is bringing full marriage equality here to Illinois — with one party in overwhelming control of every level of state government, this should not be the impossible task that state Democratic Party leaders often present it as being.
“For more information about Saturday’s protest, email Corrine Mina at corrineloveswilco@gmail.com or Andy Thayer of the Gay Liberation Network at LGBTliberation@aol.com.”
Remember to check the Events category for upcoming events near you!
WASHINGTON — October 29 — Recently, Congressman Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) of Illinois’ 6th Congressional District asked a journalist in an interview why women can have abortions if rapists cannot be executed.
This bizarre comment was made by Roskam, an Illinois Republican, during an interview for a recent profile piece in the Pioneer Press, a suburban Chicago daily publication. The newspaper asked a series of questions of both Roskam and his opponent, Jill Morgenthaler, who is endorsed by the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC). Roskam made his comment when the interviewer asked about values. The Pioneer Press reported the exchange: “Citing the late Congressman Henry Hyde, who represented the 6th District for 16 terms until 2006, Roskam said people cannot be categorized by the way in which they were conceived and [Roskam] asked in the Pioneer Press interview why women can have abortions if rapists cannot be executed.”
Roskam has a history of opposing a woman’s reproductive rights, even in the case of rape or incest. Roskam is a co-sponsor of H.R. 4157, the Sanctity of Human Life Act. This bill would dictate that human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood. Passage would therefore give a fertilized egg, viable or not, full legal protection and would effectively outlaw in vitro fertilization, abortion, and many common forms of contraception, including the IUD and the birth control pill.
“Illinois’ 6th district has a long history of being represented by anti-woman voices in Congress. Peter Roskam’s inappropriate comparison, along with his co-sponsorship of legislation that is dangerous to women’s health, is exactly why we need Jill Morgenthaler in Congress. NOW PAC endorsed Jill Morgenthaler because we know that she will fight to protect women’s rights,” said NOW PAC Chair and NOW President, Kim Gandy.
• Clayton County, Georgia, residents receive hate letters in their mailbox targeting “n*****s” and “queers,” and referring to the KKK and “my white brothers.” (story and video)
• A sick freak in Ohio by the name of Mike Lunsford hangs an effigy of Obama in his yard (”…he says the United States is a white, Christian nation — and only with white Christians should be in power”).
Bourbonnais, Illinois — An elementary school bus driver has been charged with leading a homophobic attack on a 10-year old student passenger.
The Kankakee Sheriff’s Police Department said that the boy was taunted by the driver who then encouraged other students to chase and beat the child. …
[Chief Deputy Ken McCabe] said the driver repeatedly called the boy “gay.”
”When the boy got off the bus, the driver encouraged several other students to go after him and tackle him. Our investigation shows that occurred,” McCabe told The Daily Journal.
He also said the driver is under investigation for joining the students in chasing the boy and grabbing him.
Bourbonnais School District officials would only say the driver has been terminated.
Charged with mob action, endangering the life of a child and battery is Russell A. Schmalz, 46.
Press Conference Announcing Ad Campaign To Address Radio Hall of Fame’s Planned Induction of James Dobson
Campaign Kicks-off With Full-Page Ad in the Chicago Tribune on Friday
What: The Dump Dobson Coalition, a partnership of local and national gay, lesbian bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations, is holding a press conference on Thursday, Oct. 16, (11AM) to denounce the Museum of Broadcast Communications (MBC) for its plan to honor James Dobson in its Radio Hall of Fame. The awards ceremony is planned for Nov. 8., and the Dump Dobson Coalition is strongly urging MBC Founder Bruce DuMont, to rescind the award or face a protest outside of the dinner.
The Coalition has launched a website, DumpDobson.com, and will unveil a new ad campaign at the press conference, which will debut with a full-page in the Chicago Tribune on Friday, Oct. 17. This will be followed by a robust “signature ad” campaign in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media. The Dump Dobson Coalition is headed by the The Gay Liberation Network and Truth Wins Out and has so far been joined by Equality Illinois, SoulForce and the National Youth Advocacy Coalition.
“Bruce DuMont would never honor a Don Imus, disgraced for his anti-African American remarks,” said Bob Schwartz of the Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network. “Nor would 1930s radio icon Father Charles Caughlin — the widely syndicated pro-Nazi and anti-Semite — be feted. Yet, in honoring James Dobson, Mr. DuMont appears to promote a ‘gay exception’ to the standards of public civility and decency rightly accorded other groups of people.”
“There is still time to reverse the reckless and irresponsible decision to honor James Dobson in the Radio Hall of Fame,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “It is unconscionable that the Museum is giving its imprimatur to a demagogue who has profited from divisive and discriminatory rhetoric. If the museum wants to regain its respect and credibility, it will dump Dobson.”
Where: Outside of the Renaissance Chicago Hotel (1 West Wacker Drive) 11 AM
Who: Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out Other Speakers TBA
Background: The Museum of Broadcast Communications opened up its Radio Hall of Fame balloting to allow people on the Internet to vote. James Dobson used his Focus on the Family show, which runs on 3,000 radio stations, to essentially stuff the ballot box. As a result, the Radio Hall of Fame is now honoring an anti-gay bigot who has built his radio empire on the backs of GLBT people. Honoring this ideologue is especially troubling during an economic downturn, which allows people like Dobson to scapegoat and promote discrimination. Dobson once said that allowing gay people to marry will “end the earth.” Seven scientists have accused him of distorting their work to support his anti-gay teachings. It is outrageous and unacceptable to reward a man who has lied, deceived and caused so much needless pain and suffering. The Dump Dobson coalition was formed to educate people about the danger of honoring Dobson and to urge the MBC to take prudent and responsible action.
Chicago television station WTTW-Ch. 11 received a bomb threat on Tuesday night in relation to its airing of the gay documentary “Out & Proud in Chicago”.
The locally produced film documents the history of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Chicago.
In a statement Wednesday, Chicago Commission on Human Rights Chairman Dana Starks said:
It is shameful and disgusting that this is how our LGBT community can be treated in Chicago. While we would like to believe that this kind of homophobia was a thing of the past, unfortunately it continues — this time at the expense of WTTW, Northeastern Illinois University, and also the entire LGBT community.
More than anything, this incident emphasizes the importance of providing education on the harmfulness of stereotypes which lead to discrimination — and even hate.
We hope that this incident does not tarnish the otherwise positive reception that has been anticipated for “Out and Proud in Chicago,” the first presentation of the history of the LGBT community on prime time television in Chicago.
• Barack Obama says that in 2000, he was so broke, his credit card was declined when he tried to rent a car at LAX;
• Michelle Obama (who pisses and moans constantly about how rough she had it, skipping through life from private charter school to Harvard) says she and Barry were still heavily burdened by debt (specifically, by student loans from 1988 and 1991) until Barack’s book sales took off in 2005.
Despite these facts:
• In 1993, the Obamas put a $111,000 down payment on a $277,500 condiminum;
• In 2000, the Obamas earned a combined household total of $240,000.
After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client — a longtime political supporter.
Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell’s firm that eventually totaled $112,000.
A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.
Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.
Obama’s staff said the senator advocated only for the first year’s grant — which ended up being $20,000, not $50,000. The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.
Uh, isn’t this sort of thing illegal?
Oopsy-daisy! My mistake! Apparently, this is just Chicago-style — or at least Illinois-style — politics as usual:
Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector.
So, it’s not illegal. But you know what? It should be.
Now, you take this Blackwell wheeling-and-dealing (and there’s plenty more about it at the LAT link) along with Obama’s questionable dealings with Tony Rezko, and the way Obama got where he is today — plainly put, he was kicked upstairs by another close ally, the powerful Emil Jones, Jr., whom Obama rewarded with pork-barrel earmarks of “more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones’ Senate district” — and you’ve got to start asking just how “transparent” Barack Obama really is.
It shouldn’t matter a whit if Barry’s Peter-Pays-Paul dealing is legal; the question is: Is it ethical?
A funny thing happened recently: Ever since Mike Gravel jumped back into the race, I’m not paying a lot of attention to Barack Obama — other than to shake my head and cluck my tongue every time he says something stupid. (Did you hear what he said about a woman’s right to choose? I agree with the guy, on every word, but that “punished with a baby” line is red meat for the Right. Dumb, Barry, really dumb.)
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean I’m not glad to see Obama’s very real liabilities brought up in the MSM, as often as possible. I don’t hate Barack — I just don’t want him to be president, and to that end, I want all Americans who have yet to vote in a primary to understand that Barack Obama is not the Messiah he and his blindly adoring supporters want you to think he is.
To that end, I direct your attention to a long, detailed piece that gets into the specifics of Obama’s ties to some very unsavory characters (and Jeremiah Wright isn’t even one of “the four stumps”!) worth bookmarking:
As the high-water mark for Barack Obama recedes, his campaign must now confront several dangerous stumps that were once hidden below the surface. The problems began with Obama’s long attachment to Rev. Wright, Trinity United Church, and Black Liberation Theology, but they won’t end there.
So, what issues are now lurking for Obama?
The first is the volatile mix of race and religion, begun with the Rev. Wright controversy. Videos have now surfaced of virulent race-baiting by yet another Chicago preacher with ties to Obama, the Rev. James Meeks. Obama was not a member of Meeks’s church and their connection may be only a tactical alliance between prominent local figures. That’s the question: how close are those ties?
Meeks is no ordinary pastor. He is an important political and religious figure in African-American Chicago. He not only leads a mammoth congregation, he is an Illinois state senator and a key player in Jesse Jackson’s powerful local political organization, which is squarely behind Obama’s run for the Presidency. …
Obama’s second problem is his most important patron in Illinois politics: Emil Jones. Jones heads the Illinois State Senate and is one of the two most powerful legislators in Springfield. He played a vital role in Obama’s rise in state politics and, most significantly, he blessed Obama’s underdog candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
Now that Obama is playing on a national stage, his ties to Jones raise uncomfortable questions about his years in Illinois politics. …
The Rezko trial highlights another problem for Obama, potentially a devastating one, though it is unlikely to arise for several months or more. Antoin “Tony” Rezko is on trial for taking large bribes in return for political favors. …
…Rezko problems are bad news for Obama because the two have close, long-standing ties. Obama initially downplayed those ties and minimized the money Rezko had raised for him. When local reporters raised pointed questions, Obama declined to answer. He broke that silence at a strategic moment, just as the Rev. Wright story hit and the national media was focused on nothing else. That’s when Obama found time to give extensive interviews about Rezko to the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Predictably, the story got some play locally but was drowned out nationally. …
Where does Obama figure in all this, aside from being a recipient of Rezko’s campaign cash? No one knows for sure, but suspicion centers on one particular real estate deal. …
Obama’s final stump also lies in Kenwood, where he was friendly with the 1960s radicals, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn, now married, were members of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol. …
Obama served with Ayers on the board of a small, leftist foundation, the Woods Fund. Ayers later chaired the board and is still a member. Obama served from 1999 until 2002 and received several thousand dollars annually as compensation. According to the 2001 annual report, the fund made a $6000 discretionary grant to Rev. Wright’s Trinity United Church “in recognition of Barack Obama’s contribution of services to the Woods Fund as a director.” Serving with Obama and Ayers was the prominent Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi, then a historian at the University of Chicago and now the Edward Said Professor at Columbia. (While they were all on the board, the Woods Fund gave a generous grant to the Arab American Action Network, headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona.)…
Much, much more at the link, and all well worth reading.
A man is known by the books he reads, by the company he keeps, by the praise he gives, by his dress, by his tastes, by his distastes, by the stories he tells, by his gait, by the notion of his eye, by the look of his house, of his chamber; for nothing on earth is solitary but every thing hath affinities infinite.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
You can cool it for a while with the hate mail, Obamaniacs — you know what I mean: the ones that go “You racist!” and “You quoted Fox News! That proves you’re a paid political operative for Hillary and/or the GOP!”
Here’s one you can’t lay at our doorstep, from Queerty.com — a news blog (one of our favorites, in fact) even queerer than the one you’re reading right now, and one that’s been extremely fair (often to a fault) to The Anointed One:
… First, we had Donnie McClurkin, the man who nearly derailed the Senator’s mega church campaign. Then came Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s preacher who damned the United States and spurred that revolutionary race speech.
And now Fox’s ire-inducing Sean Hannity & Alan Colmes have turned their attention to another Obama “spiritual counselor,” Reverend James Meeks, a state Senator who spends his free time blasting the bent boys and girls. Obama’s camp already denounced the remarks, saying:
Obama has appeared at hundreds of churches and served with scores of colleagues and can hardly be expected to be held responsible for all that they say.
While that may be true, Meeks’ history will certainly propel a few news stories this week. …
Meeks, who’s closely associated with anti-gay groups like Americans for Truth and Focus On The Family, told a reporter during his 2006 gubernatorial run that he’s the perfect candidate for conservative white voters: “Theologically, politically, for the white conservative voter, I’m their guy. I have their philosophy.” That philosophy became his common call during that year, when he was swiftly defeated:
Come on with me white churches … Call me and tell me to run for governor. White people who believe in Jesus, call me and tell me to run for governor”
…
If I do run and there are two people in the race who both are not standing for morality, if I don’t have every white Christian vote in the state of Illinois, I will stand on top of the Sears Tower and call every one of ya’ll racist.Just one year earlier Meeks railed against white Christians…
Meanwhile, like Wright, Meeks has come under fire for using the pulpit to dispense racialized opinions, even referring to mayors as “slave masters” and some unnamed politicians as “house n****rs…
Though he’s since apologized for those remarks — and, again, Obama himself has denounced them — we’ve got no doubt Meeks’ Obama connection will be making the rounds this week. Can we expect another speech or will Obama be able to shrug this one aside and start focusing on the task at hand: the campaign. We’re hoping the latter, because the Democrats need to make sure they’re strong enough to fight John McCain. And the past few weeks have not been helping their case.
More — including links, an embedded video of Meeks, and some spirited reader comments (”Obama describes Meeks as one of his ‘closest religious advisors’; Meeks appeared in TV ads for Obama’s US Senate campaign; When he ran for US Senate in 2004, Obama campaigned at Meeks’ Salem Baptist church; Meeks’ church was Obama’s last stop on the night he won that primary … Obama appointed Meeks to his exploratory committee for the Presidency; Meeks is listed on Obama’s campaign website of influential black supporters”…) — at the link.
Obama’s Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.”
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side, has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”
In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with,” telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.
Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright’s sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.
. . .
“He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive,” said another member of the congregation.
. . .
Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright’s approach, referring to his “social gospel” and his focus on Africa, “and I agree with him on that.”
Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright’s denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on “Good Morning America” Thursday, said Obama “had repudiated” those comments. …
No, we’re not done discussing Jeremiah Wright.
Provoked by an Obama supporter’s remark that white people can’t possibly understand what goes on in a black church, I’ve spent a good deal of time over the past 24 hours trying to understand the particular brand of theology that fuels much of Wright’s rhetoric.
I think I have a handle on it. While my opinion of Wright’s methods is even dimmer than it was yesterday, I think I have a better understanding of its origins, and even of some of the code phrases he employs.
I want to give myself some more time to gather my thoughts — or revelations, actually, as what I’ve discovered explains a lot of things, such as Barack’s refusal to do the right thing with regard to the Donnie McClurkin imbroglio, and Michelle Obama’s ongoing disparagement of America, among other things (and how all of this plays into a fascinating perspective of religious identity) — before I attempt to explain where I think this is all coming from… and the insight it provides into the real Barack Obama.
Judging from the astronomical number of hits yesterday’s Wright entry received, I know there are many, many people as simultaneously interested in and outraged by the Wrong Reverend Wright as I am.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., senior pastor, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, March 2005. Credit: Trinity United Church of Christ/Religion News Service
The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”
This following video is, according to Fox News, from Wright’s Christmas sermon. (Gee whiz, what a message of peace and unity for Christmas, eh?)
My transcript (free to use, with attribution/link, please) is below.
On edit: YouTube keeps pulling the video, but a lot of people keep re-posting it — so if you get the “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available” message, check back later, as I’ll do my best to find a new copy every time I see it’s gone missing again.
Who cares about what I’m going through? Who cares about what poor people have to put up with? Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people?
Somebody missed that — you got nervous, because we got some white members here. I’m still in bible country. I am still in [unintelligible].
Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italian — which means they were European, which means they were white — and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.
It just came to me with— with— with— within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hatin’ on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the mold. He ain’t white. He ain’t rich. And he ain’t privileged.
Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold. Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold.
Hillary never had a cab whizz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong…
I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it!
Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was! Barack knows what it means to be a black man livin’ in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! Hillary can never know that!
Hillary ain’t never been called a n*****! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons! Hillary ain’t had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folks who [unintelligible] everything, or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C student sittin’ in the White House!
Ohhh, I am so glad that I got a god who knows what it is to be a poor black man, and in a country and a culture that is controlled and run by rich white people!
He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies. Jesus taught me how to love the hell outta my enemies! And not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness.
Hillary ain’t never had her own people say she wasn’t white enough!
Jesus had his own people sidin’ with the enemy!
That’s why I love Jesus, y’all. He never let their hatred dampen his hope. …
I’m biting my tongue to refrain from saying what I’d like to say regarding your “level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness,” Mr. Wright, as my Italian blood (which ain’t half so white as you’d like to think) is a little hot right now.
No, actually, it’s very hot.
Here’s something I can say with complete impunity, Mr. Wright: You are outright lying about Barack Obama growing up poor, underprivileged, and “raised in a single-parent home.”
And Barack himself “admitted in his book, Dreams from My Father, that he had no clue what it meant ‘to be a black man in America.’ And with precious few African-Americans around him in Hawaii, he learned how to ‘be black’ from ‘TV, movies, the radio; those were places to start. Pop culture was color-coded, after all, an arcade of images from which you could cop a walk, a talk, a step, a style.’”
Oh, wait, one more thing: Mr. Wright, I hope the Internal Revenue Service is already investigating your church, and preparing to strip it of its tax-exempt status.
But then, the IRS is already interested in the United Church of Christ — a shame, really, as the UCC is the most Christ-like Christian denomination this side of the Quakers, far more colorblind than you are, and far more liberal than Obama himself — due to your unabashedly racist, one-sided politicking, and to Barack’s own shortsightedness.
What am I talking about? I’m talking about this letter from the IRS to the United Church of Christ, regarding Obama’s use of your pulpit for campaign purposes:
Because a reasonable belief exists that the United Church of Christ (”church”) has engaged in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt under section 501(a), this letter is notice of the beginning of a church tax inquiry described in IRC section 7611(a). We are sending it because we believe it is necessary to resolve questions concerning your tax-exempt status as a church described in section 501(c)(3) and in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Code.
Our concerns are based on articles posted on several websites including the church’s which state that United States Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama addressed nearly 10,000 church members gathered at the United Church of Christ’s biennial General Synod at the Hartford Civic Center, on June 23, 2007. In addition, 40 Obama volunteers staffed campaign tables outside the center to promote his campaign.
All 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches, are prohibited from participating in, or intervening in (including the publication or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. This is an absolute prohibition, violation of which results in denial or revocation of exempt status and/or the imposition of certain excise taxes, if applicable.
The prohibition against political campaign activity does not prevent candidates from being invited to speak at an event of an organization described in section 501(c)(3). If a candidate is invited to speak in his or her capcity as a candidate, then other candidates running for the same office must also be invited to speak and there should be no indication of support for, or opposition to, any candidate by the organization. Alsom the prohibition does not prevent an orgnization’s officials from being involved in a political campaign, so long as those officials do not in any way utilize the organization’s financial resources, facilities, or personnel and clearly indicate that the actions taken or the statements made are those of the individuals and not of the organizations.
… not the first time Wright appeared to endorse Obama, who was baptized at Trinity United, has been an active member of the church for two decades and receives spiritual mentorship from Wright.
The title of Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” was taken from a sermon by Wright.
. . .
In his Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:
“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”
FOX News purchased the video recordings of Wright’s sermons from the church.
“It’s pretty clear an indirect endorsement of Barack Obama — that’s not something you’re supposed to do according to the tax code,” said Andrew Walsh, a professor at Trinity College who specializes in religion in politics.
“Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”
You need help, Rev. Wright. Your soul is poisoned by hate. If you’re hearing any “voices” guiding you, they don’t belong to angels.
It’s sad that your “hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness” may be the thing to bring down one of the few genuinely liberal Christian churches in the modern world.
It’s sad that the IRS wouldn’t think of narrowing its focus to a single, rogue church within an otherwise upstanding denomination.
It’s sad that the entire UCC body may become collateral damage in your crusade against those of us who don’t buy Obama’s lies — or yours.
“Obama and Me” is a long piece — well worth the full read — in the February 28 edition of the Dallas Observer by Todd Spivak, who, in 2000, “was a young, hungry reporter in Chicago with a young, hungry state legislator on my speed dial.”
“This,” Spivak writes, “is before Obama Girl, before the Secret Service detail, before he becomes a best-selling author. His book, Dreams From My Father, has been out of print for years. … This is before he becomes a U.S. senator, before Oprah starts stumping for him, before he positions himself to become the country’s first black president. He is just a rank-and-file state senator in Illinois…”
After describing a phone call from a “screaming” Obama, angry about a less-than-flattering piece Spivak had written about him for the Illinois Times, Spivak reaches back into Obama’s history — and how the “young, hungry state legislator” really rose to power.
Among the more salient points:
My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.
. . .
When asked about his legislative record, Obama rattles off several bills he sponsored as an Illinois lawmaker.
He expanded children’s health insurance, made the state Earned Income Tax Credit refundable for low-income families, required public bodies to tape closed-door meetings to make government more transparent and required police to videotape interrogations of homicide suspects.
. . .
It’s a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what’s interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.
Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama’s seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative achievements.
Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every level of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor’s office as well as both legislative chambers.
The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James “Pate” Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned black senator known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.
Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama’s. He became Obama’s kingmaker.
. . .
Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.
“I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” state Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.
“I don’t consider it bill jacking,” Hendon told me. “But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the 1-yard line and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book.”
During his seventh and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama’s stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law—including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced. It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics, and he couldn’t have done it without Jones.
. . .
So how has Obama repaid Jones?
Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones’ Senate district.
Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.
I’ll never forget what he said:
“Some call it pork; I call it steak.”
. . .
On the stump, Obama has frequently invoked his experiences as a community organizer on the Chicago South Side in the early 1990s…
But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders. …
. . .
In the presidential campaign, Obama has been criticized for a shady land deal and other past ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago real estate developer and ubiquitous political donor who now faces federal charges of attempted extortion and money laundering. …
. . .
Though it didn’t make national news, Obama inflamed many residents in his old state Senate district last March when he endorsed controversial Chicago alderman Dorothy Tillman in a runoff election. …
. . .
He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature. …
. . .
A week after my profile of Obama was published, I called some of my contacts in the Illinois Legislature. I ran through a list of black Chicago lawmakers who had worked with Obama and was surprised to learn that many resented him and had supported other candidates in the U.S. Senate election.
“Anybody but Obama,” the late state Representative Lovana Jones told me at the time.
State Representative Monique Davis, who attended the same church as Obama and co-sponsored several bills with him, also did not support his candidacy. She complained of feeling overshadowed by Obama.
“I was snubbed,” Davis told me. “I felt he was shutting me out of history.”
In a follow-up report published a couple weeks later, I wrote about these disgruntled black legislators and the central role Senate President Emil Jones played in Obama’s revived political life.
The morning after the story was posted online, I arrived early at my new offices. I hadn’t taken off my coat when the phone rang. It was Obama. …
We were wondering when we’d see the phrase “Great White Hope” headline an op/ed about Barack Obama (The Great White Hope was a play-turned-1970-film fictionalizing the life of black boxer Jack Johnson), and this past Sunday, we found it in the Washington Post: “Why Obamamania? Because He Runs as The Great White Hope.”
David Greenberg recaps the “giddiness bordering on exhilaration among voters” following Obama’s win in Iowa, and utter intoxication among “voters and pundits … heady with the hope that he can deliver not just ‘change’ … but a categorically different kind of change from Clinton or the Republican candidates.”
For a moment, our hearts skipped at the possibility that Mr. Greenberg was about to explain the words “hope” and “change” — words rendered completely indefinable by Obama and his supporters. “Hope for what?” we keep asking. “Change what, exactly?”
Mr. Greenberg is to be forgiven for being as unable to define these words in the context of Obamamania; neither Obama nor his starry-eyed supporters have been able to define them either. Confront an Obama supporter, and you’ll likely hear (as we have, repeatedly) some inane, automated response as “You just don’t get it,” or “It’s a shame you don’t have hope,” or “Don’t you want change?” or (the most chilling we’ve heard lately) “There’s still time for you to catch up with the masses.” (Masses of what? And who wants to “catch up with ‘the masses’”? Whatever happened to thinking for yourself?)
This, however, is our current favorite: “Obama is the only way we’re going to throw those Bush thugs out of the White House!” Never mind that come January 20, 2009, Bush and Co. will be vacating the premises, no matter who wins the presidency in ‘08. But that’s the sort of answer you get when you press Obamaites too hard for a definition of “change.”
Still, Greenberg doesn’t need to define the words “hope” and “change”; he explains Obamamania by defining what they aren’t, beginning with the question, “So what explains the magic?”
The most obvious explanation is Obama’s stirring oratory, with its notes of generational change and unity.
Well, we already knew that: Obama’s charisma is undeniable, and he’s comparatively young (just six weeks older than yours truly, in fact); he represents the first post-Baby Boomer generation, the Baby Busters (perpetually confused with GenXers) — who, believe you me, have precious little in common with the “Howdy Doody” generation with which we’re so often lumped. Seriously: While a “generation” lasts 20 years, a “baby boom” just doesn’t — and yet every American born between 1945 and 1964 is thrown into the Baby Boomer pot. A “baby boom” is supposed to be the result of an event immediately preceding a spike in births; does anyone really believe that folks were still making babies in 1964 as a result of World War II?
But I digress, as usual. Still, Obama’s age, and, more striking, his tenuous ties to the rest of us Busters, are important considerations I’ll address in a moment. Right now, let’s get back to Greenberg’s herculean attempt to explain the Obama phenomenon (and note how Greenberg uses the word “seduction,” perhaps the most common word associated with the mystery of Obamamania):
The key to his seduction, though, resides not just in what he says but in what remains unsaid. It lies in the tacit offer — a promise about overcoming America’s shameful racial history — that his particular candidacy offers to his enthusiasts, and to us all.
Obama’s allure differs from the infatuations of past election cycles because it can’t be traced to what he has done or will do. In his legislative career, Obama has produced few concrete policy changes, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a rank-and-file fan who can cite one.
And there you have both the reason for Obama’s popularity, and the very thing that frustrates those of us not infected by the Obama bug to the point of distraction: His appeal lies in nothing he’s ever actually done, but in vague, feel-good… er, vibes. (Well, there’s one thing Obama may share with the rest of the Busters: I, too, once grooved on indefinable “good vibes.” Of course, it was the early 1970s, and I was about ten at the time.)
Not since 1896 — when another rousing speechmaker, William Jennings Bryan, sought the White House — has the zeal for a candidate corresponded so little to a record of hard accomplishment. But merely asking if Obama has done enough for us to expect he’d be a good president misses the point, because that measures the past rather than imagining the future.
Greenberg certainly has his finger on the pulse of the Obamanation: Asking about hard accomplishment misses the point — the point being: You’re killing my buzz, man — stop asking logical questions, and just get with the groove, baby.
Since when was it such a radical idea to demand that a potential President of the United States have a little more to fall back on than good vibes?
But that is another no-no question to the Obamaites: You’re not allowed to cite Obama’s distinct lack of experience in matters beyond the borders of the state of Illinois.
“Oh, sure,” the Obamaites cry, “Hillary has ‘experience’ — but do you want the same old corporatism that’s dominated the White House since the 1980s?”
(This is usually followed by “You’re just a Hillary supporter anyway!” Which is far from the truth — although the hostile fervor of the Obamaites has served to push many of us previously-anti-Hillaryites squarely into the Hillary camp — but that’s another thorn we’ve snipped before, and will no doubt snip again.)
Frankly, “the same old corporatism” under Bill Clinton worked just fine for me, thanks very much; despite Big Dog’s spectacular (and unforeseen) failures and downright betrayals in the area of gay equality, those eight years between 1992 and 2000 were the best eight years of my life, in terms of quality of life. Is it selfish to long for the days when I was making a very healthy paycheck in a field (I.T.) that has since dried up like Kakadu in July? Perhaps. But never lose sight of the fact that principles must come second to the little luxuries of life — like eating, and living indoors. The most principled civil-rights activist in the world isn’t much use to anybody if s/he’s on the street and starving to death.
Yet if Obama charms us by pointing to tomorrow, he doesn’t come bearing a new ideological vision.
True. And that throngs of voters are willing to cast their lot for a candidate whose ideology changes with every shift in the wind should make us all very nervous. One thing I’ve said repeatedly throughout this long, long campaign, in regard to Obama’s calculated machination of pitting Southern religionists against gay and lesbian Americans: You have to give the Republican candidates some credit for honesty; at least I knowRomney and Huckabee and all the rest loathe my very existence as a gay American, and will fight me head-on. In contrast, Obama’s talk doesn’t match his walk.
Don’t sing me that old song, “Obama is the best candidate for gay rights — just look at his voting record!” (This means you, Chris Crain, who, not-so-incidentally, keep harping on that stale old right-wing rumor that Hillary is a lesbian.) There’s little difference between Obama’s voting record on LGBT-equality issues and that of any other mainstream Democrat with at least two ounces of brain matter left in his or her skull.
Where Obama steps out of line — way out of line — is in his deceitful and downright mean campaign tactics, his shameless pandering to shameless bigots (particularly those who should know better), and his unwavering insistence that lesbians and gay men are simply not worthy of the same rights (or, more accurately, privileges) that he enjoys. See: McClurkin, McClurkin, McClurkin, and Barack’s latest hit with a bullet: “We Are All Sinners (a.k.a. The Wink-Wink-Nudge, Bush-Style Code Words for Religionists Song).”
Yet, believe it or not, I still don’t think Obama at his core is a raging homophobe. I believe he is completely indifferent to gay and lesbian Americans, and we pop up on his radar only as a commodity — or liability.
Obama is simply an opportunist — which again, is more worrisome: I know where all the Republican candidates stand on the issue of my rights; they make no bones about it. As Duane Wells wrote so very plainly and perfectly: “I never thought I’d say this, but Mr. Obama’s duplicitous stance on gay and lesbian rights circa the Donnie McClurkin controversy has given me something of an appreciation for George W. Bush’s no-nonsense approach to politics. I may not agree with a thing that comes out of curious George’s mouth, but at least he doesn’t piss in my cornflakes and tell me that he filled the bowl with whole milk. No sir. If there is a good thing to be said about President Bush it’s that he will tell you he’s going to piss in your cornflakes, then he will actually piss in your cornflakes and then he will hold a press conference defending his right to piss in your cornflakes. There’s no deception. It’s honest and clear… whether you like it or not. With Obama that is unfortunately not the case.”
And consider this: If Obama so readily and freely throws gay Americans under the bus for sake of cozying up to a contingent (whose votes he was almost certainly assured of anyway), who’s he going to throw under the bus next? He’s already told the Baby Boomers that they’re for all practical purposes irrelevant — will your particular demographic be the next rendered “irrelevant,” a mere monkey wrench in the Obama machine?
It appears that Obama’s only “ideology” is one of winning, at any cost. He doesn’t actually stand for anything, other than some fuzzy concept of “hope and change.”
And, to paraphrase Alexander Hamilton: If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything. And Obama has proved, time and time again, that he’s susceptible to following, blindly, a lot of bad advice. That’s assuming, generously, that Obama is not the instigator behind the cruelest of his own campaign calculations; on the other hand, it’s Obama’s campaign, and Obama should be the one calling the shots.
Quite a dilemma, this: Should we be more worried by a candidate who surrounds himself with the most un-principled advisers and does whatever they tell him to do (a grim portent of the way President Obama will pick and choose his cabinet), or by a candidate who is himself so ruthlessly ambitious that he will discard the most faithful voting blocs in his own party in order to “reach out” to groups whose “principles” run counter to very idea of democracy itself?
“At crucial moments through his career,” writes Ed Pilkington, “he had what he calls the ‘audacity of hope’: where others might have stepped back, he reached out, both in terms of his personal ambition and in terms of his appeal to supporters outside the natural Democratic tent.
“When he made the Boston speech he was not even yet in Congress: He was a Chicago lawyer running at the time for one of two Illinois seats in the US Senate. That race was in itself a long shot: a black man, as he says in his first book Dreams from My Father, ‘without organizational backing or personal wealth, and with a funny name,’ competing to become only the third African American since the post-civil war period of Reconstruction to serve in the Senate. He won, galvanizing support in white areas as well as black.
“Look further back still and the pattern is repeated. In 1990, while a second-year student at Harvard, he had the audacity to stand for election to head the Harvard Law Review, one of the country’s most prestigious legal publications. He beat off 18 other candidates to become its president (savor the moment: He was elected president Obama).
“David Goldberg, a civil rights lawyer who was a runner-up in that poll, recalls that Obama won by reaching out to right-wing law students, several of whom went on to become key legal advisers in the Bush administration: ‘We were a really polarized group of students, and he managed to span us all.’”
Notice a pattern yet?
In his WaPo op/ed, Greenberg draws a parallel between Ronald Reagan’s empty, feel-good rhetoric, and Bill Clinton’s 1992 win due to being “the first Democrat since the 1960s to formulate a viable and vital new liberalism — one rooted in years of policy wonkery, a frank reckoning with his party’s failures and an early recognition of the importance of globalization.” But…
…where Clinton converted voters to his philosophy with binder-thick proposals, from AmeriCorps to welfare reform to the earned-income tax credit, Obama fans rarely tout his specific ideas. No one claims his agenda entails radical innovation or differs much from Hillary Clinton’s. On the contrary, Obama’s ideology, insofar as he has articulated it, seems to be a familiar, mainstream liberalism, heavy on communitarianism. High-minded and process-oriented, in the Mugwump tradition that runs from Adlai Stevenson to Bill Bradley, it is pitched less to the Democratic Party’s working-class base than to upscale professionals.
The Obama phenomenon, then, stems not from what he has done but who he is. As the social critic John McWhorter has written, “What gives people a jolt in their gut about the idea of President Obama is the idea that it would be a ringing symbol that racism no longer rules our land.” He is the great white hope.
Greenberg delves more deeply into the race issue, then hits upon an idea that — commensurate with my encounters with the frenzied throngs — is a very uncomfortable idea to Obama supporters:
Obama’s rhetorical gifts clearly contribute to his allure. But that allure resides not simply in the mellow timbre of his larynx but, more deeply, in his near-perfect pitch in talking about race to white America. Obama doesn’t shun race altogether — if he did, he would provoke suspicions — and he certainly doesn’t “transcend” race, whatever that means. But neither, as the social theorist Shelby Steele has written, does he rub white America’s face in its corrupt history of slavery and segregation. Traditionally, whites have appreciated such gentleness.
History provides a precedent of sorts: In 1960, John F. Kennedy, a dashing, almost aristocratic figure who defied many nasty stereotypes of Irish Catholics, made Protestants feel not just safe in voting for him but downright virtuous. They could flatter themselves that they were not prejudiced while still choosing a candidate as cultivated as any Brahmin. Similarly, Obama — whose strongest appeal has thus far been to upscale white liberals — allows those whites to feel good about themselves and their country. He lets them imagine that a nation founded for freedom yet built on slavery can be redeemed by pulling a lever.
At the same time, Obama doesn’t threaten or discomfort whites. He doesn’t strike them as wronged or impatient, or as the spokesman of a long-subjugated minority group or even as someone particularly culturally different from themselves.
Ouch. In other words, white liberals may be leaping at the chance to finally alleviate all that deeply-ingrained white-liberal guilt without actually addressing the issue of race head-on.
This idea, whether correct or not, is one few Obamaites confront easily or willingly. Rather, many immediately discard it with the accusation that it somehow impugns Obama’s qualifications for the presidency (whatever those as-yet-unexplained “qualifications” may be). It doesn’t — nor it is a “racist” thought (the growing chorus of “Racism!” from the Obamaites every time The One’s suitability for the presidency is questioned, for any reason, is deafening). Rather, it is an idea worth consideration and discussion; if nothing else, the truth could provide some clues about the makeup of Obama’s base: What percentage of Obama supporters really are white liberals proud to say they support a man of color — and secretly relieved to support that man as an imaginary panacea for race conflict in this country?
Obama above all should be most interested in the answer to this question, if for no other reason than to attempt to dilute the potential “Bradley effect” (when white voters publicly espouse their support for a non-white candidate, but vote for the white candidate when alone in the voting booth), a phenomenon that appears to have some Obama supporters worried. Witness Obama’s projected win — and surprise loss to Hillary Clinton — in New Hampshire.
Greenberg addresses yet another issue Obama supporters are loath to confront:
As much Kansan as Kenyan, Obama does not descend from families who suffered American slavery or Jim Crow. His family tree has fewer slaves than slaveholders, fewer chains than Cheneys.
That’s what I meant by Obama’s “tenuous ties to the rest of us Busters.” As mentioned, Obama and I are the same age; neither of us can recall the Civil Rights era as clearly as our elders (Obama and I were both two-going-on-three in 1964), yet I, at least, remember dim news images of firehoses in the streets of Birmingham, and attack dogs unleashed — and, much more clearly, my first, timid step approaching a black child at a playground. While I didn’t understand what it was I understood, I understood there was a difference between us, and that there were some very bad people in this world who would be very angry about my playing with a black child (or, as we were taught was the proper word at the time, a Negro).
Despite his skin color versus mine, I am not at all convinced that Barack Obama’s ties to the Civil Rights era equate with mine; when my snow-white third-grade class was being introduced to our first black classmate, Obama was living in Indonesia. We both attended Catholic school — but somehow, I cannot imagine that young Barack was inundated by the issue of American race relations (on the news, in the movies, on the cover of newsweeklies, and in lengthy class discussions — yes, even before my age reached double digits) as I was.
The issue was all around me; no one my age was allowed to forget the vast divide between whites and blacks in the United States. Was Obama, insulated literally on the other side of the planet, as aware at the same tender age of the volatile schism between black and white “back home”?
I wasn’t quite four when the Watts riots exploded — and exploded with such repercussion that I remember them as well as I remember the endless news footage of the Vietnam War, and the nightly body count out of Southeast Asia.
Does Obama remember any of this? Did he even hear about it before he returned to the U.S. at the age of ten — when even the Summer of Love was a quickly-fading memory?
Greenberg continues:
This background may be what some people (mainly blacks) have meant when they asked the regrettable question of whether Obama is “black enough” to earn their votes. But Obama has always been black enough for his elite white enthusiasts, who would never presume to judge an African American’s racial authenticity — indeed, are all too happy to have such a question be kept, by prevailing norms, off limits to them.
Ouch, again.
Some pundits scratched their heads when Obama was trailing Clinton among black voters. (He’s now pulled even or ahead.) But it made perfect sense. Clinton had a track record of working for African Americans’ interests.
And yet it’s Clinton’s track record Obama supporters decry as the same old, same old — as opposed to, I guess, this hazy promise of “change” from Obama. No one put it better than Senator Clinton herself at the New Hampshire debate: “Making change is not about what you believe. It’s not about a speech you make. It is about working hard. …
“I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change. I’m running on 35 years of change. I’m running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies.
“So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I’ve already made.”
Clinton is a known quantity. We know what she’s accomplished, and she’s clear on what she intends to deliver. Obama is not.
…is a fantasy of easy redemption. America’s racial history — mixed into our culture at its foundation — will be with us always, even as personal prejudice recedes and inequality is chipped away. For all we know, a President Obama might make the so-called underclass his top priority. But Obamamania — the phenomenon, not the man — leads us to believe that if only we vote for an African American, an avatar of “change” and healing, we can slough off the burdens of our past — the burdens of finding answers to problems such as the rising number of out-of-wedlock births, the obscene size of the black male population behind bars, the rotten state of city schools, the simmering white resentment about affirmative action, the black-white gap in life expectancy and the cascade of government failures that turned Hurricane Katrina from a breakdown of emergency relief into a disgraceful racial scandal.
Obama’s boosters are not fired up about finally confronting those intricate and intractable problems, for which the answers lie not in identity but in politics and policy. Inspiring and exhilarating as it is, Obamamania allows us to sidestep the hardest challenges, at least for now.
That is what worries me the most: that Obama will be swept into the White House on a wave of “easy redemption” that “allows us to sidestep the hardest challenges, at least for now.”
I’m no fool: Any change would be welcome after seven years of allowing ourselves to be cowed into submission by a rogue administration with an out-of-control tinpot dictator in charge.
But do we want to “sidestep the hardest challenges,” now or in the future? Haven’t we buried our heads in the sand long enough?
Three women claimed Thursday in a federal lawsuit that an off-duty Chicago police officer roughed them up and called them names because of their sexual orientation after this year’s gay pride parade.
. . .
“This case is another example of the corruption, cover-up and brutality that is festering inside the Chicago Police Department,” said attorney Dana Kurtz, who filed the suit for damages on behalf of the three women.
. . .
According to the lawsuit, a vehicle driven by Fuery came upon a car moving at 30 mph on Interstate 55 after the June 24 parade. Fuery beeped her horn, and Szura responded by slamming on his brakes, speeding up and switching lanes, making it impossible for Fuery to pass, the lawsuit said.
Fuery was forced to the shoulder, where Szura screamed words such as “dyke” and spit at her, according to the lawsuit. The women claim he stuck a gun in Fuery’s abdomen, “causing her to fear for her life.”
When Sciortino tried to step in, Szura shoved her, and she fell, the lawsuit said. When Tomaskovic drove up in another car and tried to help, Szura placed her in a chokehold, according to the suit.
The Rev. Mark Sorvillo loved taking his parish’s money and spending it on himself. Trips to Rome, Venice, Paris. And $900 meals at New York restaurants.
In 1999, Sorvillo found someone else to lavish his parishioners’ collection-plate donations on — a male stripper.
Sorvillo — who pleaded guilty Friday to stealing nearly $200,000 from St. Margaret Mary parish on the North Side — gave cars, plane tickets and thousands of dollars in cash to James Sosnicki, a married Louisville man who stripped frequently at gay clubs in Chicago, law enforcement sources said.
Reached in Louisville, Sosnicki told the Chicago Sun-Times he paid Sorvillo back — and said their relationship was never sexual.
. . .
Sorvillo resigned from St. Margaret Mary in February 2006 after parishioners caught him stealing from the collection bags. He had been under suspicion since threatening to close the church’s school because of the parish’s strained finances. An investigation revealed he skimmed more than $40,000 from collections, wrote checks from parish accounts to himself and his creditors, and charged more than $62,000 at Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s and Marshall Field’s to the parish. In October 2006, prosecutors charged him with felony theft.
Obey the law and keep Bush off the Illinois ballot, say state Libertarians
Illinois should obey its ballot access laws — and keep President George W. Bush off the 2004 ballot.
So said the Libertarian Party of Illinois, after Republicans revealed that they would not nominate their 2004 presidential candidate until seven days after the Illinois deadline for certifying candidates for the November ballot.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has requested that the Illinois State Board of Elections ignore the law, and place President Bush’s name on the ballot anyway.
“The Republican Party needs to abide by the same rule of law as everyone else,” said Illinois LP Executive Director Jeff Trigg. “You can be sure if the tables were turned — and it was the Libertarians nominating their presidential candidate seven days after the deadline — they wouldn’t lift a finger to help us stay on the ballot.”
The Republican Party will nominate its presidential candidate — almost certain to be incumbent George W. Bush, who faces no significant opposition and has already announced he will seek re-election — at its national convention on September 3, 2004. That’s 61 days before the November 2 general election.
However, Illinois state election law requires presidential candidates to be certified at least 67 days prior to the general election.
In response, the RNC has asked the State Board of Elections (SBE) to grant them an “exception” to the law. The board said it would consider the request at an upcoming meeting after getting a legal opinion from Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
But Libertarians said the State Board of Elections does not have the authority to grant exemptions — and thus arbitrarily decide which political parties must follow the law.
At a press conference in the State Capitol Press Room in Springfield on May 19, Trigg said the only way Bush can qualify for the ballot is if the Illinois General Assembly changes the law. …
Noting that Libertarian candidates have been kept off the ballot in the past because of restrictive ballot access laws, Trigg said the law should be enforced equally.
“Libertarians don’t believe President Bush should be kept off the Illinois ballot because of a technicality, any more than they believe their own candidates should suffer the same fate,” he said. “But the fact is that Libertarian and other candidates have been taken off the ballot on technicalities — and the Republican Party needs to abide by the same rule of law as everyone else.”
If the SBE does grant Bush an exemption to the law, it will merely prove that Illinois has a “double standard,” said Trigg. …
Tweet This Post! 
