View Story | 645 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Thanks for deleting that diary. And, thanks also, for having the courage to stand-corrected, and with us!
by leonard145b on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:47:06 AM PDT
Obama: Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done. I believe that's important.
more excerpts below
Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:Prosperity, Progress and Peace
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:08:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
but Obama doesn't need to hire performers that have made a living off of whipping up homo hatred.
Going to where homophobia exists and countering it is laudable. Paying anti-gay bigots to perform on one's behalf is not.
No more Republican rule.
by HarveyMilk on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:10:53 AM PDT
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:19:11 AM PDT
McClurkin and Rev. Gay Damage Control Afterthought will not be debating each other at the event in question.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:28:09 AM PDT
Gospel singer says he is not anti-gay
Probably Obama spoke to him. It seems to me that we have already made progress on this McClurkin dude.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:30:51 AM PDT
and what a steaming pile of bulls*** it is.
Now McClurkin is claiming that not only is he not antigay now, but that he never was in the past either, which is objectively mendacioius.
If this is your idea of "communication," then we'd be better off with McClurkin's previous hateful honesty.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:32:46 AM PDT
in question and ameliorate the problem via dialog. It can be a slow process, and doesn't necessarily produce all the results overnight.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:37:02 AM PDT
"I don't care what you think and what you do, just smile for the g*dd**n camera."
That's the "communication" that I imagine went on between the Obama Campaign and McClurkin prior to the Chicago Tribune article.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:40:06 AM PDT
The guy is saying "I am not anti-gay" which is better than his sayind he is anti-gay and behaving accordingly.
McClurkin said there "sexuality, everything is a matter of choice." "I don't believe that even from a religious point of view that Jesus ever discriminated toward anyone, nor do I," "My only concern is to be in place with Sen. Obama in unity and bring all the factors together for the sake of change," "There's never been a statement made by me about curing homosexuality. People are using that in order to incite anger and to twist my whole platform on it. There's no crusade for curing it or to convert everyone. This is just for those who come to me and ask for change."
McClurkin said there
"sexuality, everything is a matter of choice."
"I don't believe that even from a religious point of view that Jesus ever discriminated toward anyone, nor do I,"
"My only concern is to be in place with Sen. Obama in unity and bring all the factors together for the sake of change,"
"There's never been a statement made by me about curing homosexuality. People are using that in order to incite anger and to twist my whole platform on it. There's no crusade for curing it or to convert everyone. This is just for those who come to me and ask for change."
Not accepting these improved views makes me think that intolerance is now going in the other direction.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:44:37 AM PDT
when in the same breath he lies about his "past" attitudes?
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:45:27 AM PDT
being shown towards him, eventhough his words have softened, feels like the gay community wants to punish him for leaving the community. That's how it feels.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:49:47 AM PDT
long preceded the gay community's actually ever noticing him in the first place.
So you "feel" wrong.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:53:03 AM PDT
to defend McClurkin, won't you? First the use of the term "ex-gay," which psychologically does not exist, then blaming his hatred on the gay community's "desire to punish him"!
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:55:44 AM PDT
ex-communicating. Intolerance is curable with thoughtful words.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:58:29 AM PDT
who doesn't claim to be a part of my group.
And you're still not answering my question: Why should we believe the guy when he's still lying?
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:59:37 AM PDT
aren't we? That's the ex-communication I was talking about.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:00:56 AM PDT
and there's still no "communication" going on in the Obama Campaign on the matter.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:03:54 AM PDT
"there's still no "communication" going on in the Obama Campaign on the matter."
I am guessing that Obama spoke to McClurkin at some point. McClurkin expressed his views. You're choosing not to take at his word. Maybe more communication will take place down the road if McClurkin doesn't mend his ways. That's what I am talking about.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:06:02 AM PDT
I am guessing that Obama spoke to McClurkin at some point.
And I've already recorded my suspicions as to the tenor of that "conversation."
You're choosing not to take at his word.
Of course not, because he's still lying.
Maybe more communication will take place down the road if McClurkin doesn't mend his ways.
If McClurkin doesn't "mend his ways," then if history is any teacher, it will be the GLBT community that embarrasses the Obama Campaign into spinning some "communication" out of the next offense. That's what I'm talking about.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:11:14 AM PDT
try to talk him/her about it, instead sitting at the other end throwing purity stones until he/she reemerges as a saint.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:15:51 AM PDT
try to tell him what he's doing is wrong than deem him evil and be done with it.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:16:51 AM PDT
Tell me how it goes.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:20:06 AM PDT
arrange an appointment asap :)
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:28:48 AM PDT
that I have any such power.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:29:44 AM PDT
at all.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:34:53 AM PDT
and let me know how it turns out.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:37:39 AM PDT
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:38:56 AM PDT
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:40:48 AM PDT
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:41:39 AM PDT
the TRing opportunity I see. Sickening.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:00:51 PM PDT
TRs here.
I graciously praised one of yours, annefrank for apologizing below ("after all, annefrank apologized below. We should all uprate that comment, after removing the unwarranted TRs.")
You should not be jumping at the available opportunity to dump TRs on me again. It's bad conduct and bad karma to dump TRs on people you don't like at every available opportunity.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:10:46 PM PDT
Instead of cussing someone out.
by benny05 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:39:45 PM PDT
Please be nice, NL, instead of cussing someone out. That is why you were TR'd, not because your posts are consistently anti-Edwards. You can be anti-Edwards all you want as long as it is done rationally. The comment got a little too emotional and crossed the line.
by benny05 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:42:23 PM PDT
pounce on me with TRs.
Other than corvo himself, none of them had anything to say in the thread (other than yourself to justify AFTER the fact):
corvo, benny05, scoff0165, leonard145b, Predictor, TomP, okamichan13
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:05:04 PM PDT
you implied I was being "delusional". My "fuck you" was a direct response to that.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:42:05 AM PDT
nobody advocated the equivalent of "throwing stones"--just the removal of his paid presence from the event on the grounds of incompatibility.
The fact of McClurkle's continued lying actually demonstrates this continued incompatibility.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:21:25 AM PDT
be more tolerant. I agree with Obama's approach.
The world won't come to you all dressed up in wonderful purity.
You have to try and make it better with hard work and intent to make it better.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:23:33 AM PDT
of someone who's lying about his tolerance history.
All the Obama Campaign has demonstrated is that it's not above pandering to both sides. Fine; it's what politicians do. But any illusions that he's better than the rest in terms of pandering have been convincingly shattered.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:26:57 AM PDT
You keep saying McClurkin is lying. I gave quotes. Tell me which one of those he's lying on using quotes from his past, so we can be specific about things.
Maybe he's giving his interpretation or internal feelings.
If you have no capacity to forgive and for give and take in the process of making people's views and behavior better, the end result is only division, not unity.
I think that any human being can be made better with persuasion. And while you're doing the persuastion, acting like purity troll doesn't help.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:34:06 AM PDT
using quotes from his past
. . . such quotes have been posted . . . how many times over the past few days, and you still won't read them?
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:36:28 AM PDT
they sounded more clueless/nonsensical than bigoted. Have you sought an apology for them by say writing to McClurkin or asking Obama's campaign to tell McClurkin to apologize for them?
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:44:21 AM PDT
they sounded more clueless/nonsensical than bigoted.
spinspinspinspinspin . . .
Have you sought an apology for them by say writing to McClurkin or asking Obama's campaign to tell McClurkin to apologize for them?
Nah, I'm too busy waiting for Dick Cheney to call me back. Given your obvious closeness to the Obama Machine, maybe you cold do so.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:46:53 AM PDT
in way, shape or form. But, I do know that the blogosphere gave him a very raw deal, pounding the shit out of him for small things (while in the process ignoring and giving a pass to war-mongers that helped bring death to millions).
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:52:28 AM PDT
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:57:06 AM PDT
another instance of beating the shit out of Obama, egged on by rival campaigns that support war-mongers.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:21 AM PDT
if they're right on this one.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:15:49 AM PDT
'If you have no capacity to forgive and in the process of making people's views and behavior better, the end result is only division, not unity.'
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:37:17 AM PDT
is taking seriously an issue that someone else insists you regard as trivial.
by corvo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:29:15 AM PDT
nore likely Don's gonna get caught with his gay lover and that will be the thing that finally sends him in to a crisis because this time it will be someone he truly cares about and the lie about being straight will just be too much this time. I feel sorry for him. But in the meantime he is dangerous and people like that should be in jail for practicing quack psychology and mental abuse of teenagers, not being paid to sing at political events.
Gore/Colbert2008
by MollyStark on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:49:50 AM PDT
He can believe what he wants, but I don't have to tolerate his homophobia.
I think you need to go see the Documentary "For the Bible Told me So". I think it would make this issue clearer for you.
No one is saying he doesn't have a right to believe what he wants, but they sure as hell can be offended by it. I have friends who've survived "ex-gay" ministries, they are not healthy and they've done a great deal of damage on their own.
Mr. Ellinorianne for CA State Senate! (Gary Pritchard ActBlue CA-SD-33)
by Ellinorianne on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:15:16 AM PDT
because of the attitudes of people like McClurkin.
The man is no more ex-gay than I am. He just retreated back into the closet and used it to make his fortune. He is a disgusting and hurtful person who deserves none of what he has.
So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33
by Cali Techie on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:55:56 AM PDT
discrimination and intolerance as well, at various times. But, I still believe that communcation works and ex-communcation doesn't.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:59:39 AM PDT
with people who are open to it. McClurkin is not open to it because what he does is how he makes his living. For him to change his stand now would bring that gravy train he's riding to a screeching halt.
McClurkin knows better, which means he's a fraud.
by Cali Techie on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:32:36 AM PDT
more to do with the fact that it implies that people in the gay community can be cured too. That there is something wrong with them. That's the part that bothers them, not that he left the community.
by Ellinorianne on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:12:13 AM PDT
Get it thru your thick head, NeuvoLiberal, that "ex-gay" is a LIE !
"When reality bites, bite back!" ~ The Werewolf Prophet, resident loopy guru of Prophecy Street.
by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:13:37 PM PDT
The politics of cynicism, versus the politics of hope.
I won't say you have no grounds to by cynical, but you also have no proof of what communication, if any went on. Obama is talking about a kind of change that goes far deeper the politics of cynicism. I have no idea whether he can accomplish such a vision in national politics, but I am willing to give him a chance.
by Mother of Zeus on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:26:33 PM PDT
I have seen no proof that he is anything but talk and I have seen no specifics. I'm a grown up, I need more than talk. I find Obama to be mostly hot air. I am sorry, we agree about Gore but not about Obama.
by MollyStark on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:03:06 PM PDT
I haven't made up my mind about Obama yet. I find him intriguing and I'm willing to give him a chance. I need to really look into some of his policy proposals more, especially his environmental policy specifics.
Have you by any chance read "Dreams from My Father"? It's a good read and may be worth picking up some day if you have time.
by Mother of Zeus on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:38:27 PM PDT
he is not only anti gay he thinks they can be reformed and turn straight. It you know anything you know that is ridiculous and hateful and dangerous to the children he is counseling.
Can you really be this desperate to advocate for Obama that you would go to this length to support this disgusting pathetic human being who causes gay teenagers to hate and feel shame for themselves?
by MollyStark on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:42:03 AM PDT
in the future. I believe that Obama actually works (and has worked) to change minds of such people. I am upset with how politically oriented parties (with past homophobic conduct and words of people they support) are blowing this out of proportion and hitting Obama with it. I am sure that several gospel singers that have held same views as McClurkin worked for Clinton campaign etc.
And we know Bill Clinton's own homophobic spins against Howard Dean.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:50:06 AM PDT
say that he's not anti-gay in that piece, he really doesn't even address it at all but to say that he wants to help those that come to him.
For me I haven't been as upset as many people have been over this. But the more I talk to my gay friends the more I understand why they are upset about. Gay Christian friends of mine.
If I have to chose a side, I chose the side of those who tell me it hurts them to know this and it bothers them. It's nothing personal against Obama.
And, if Obama gets the nomination, I will support him 110%.
by Ellinorianne on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:10:11 AM PDT
"Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings," he cried. "God delivered me from homosexuality," he added.
Quoted from the NYT blog-piece that disgusted me today.
Human sexuality is "suffering" only if you love someone who happens to be the same sex as you. And only God can make you want to make a beast with two backs with the opposite sex. Right.
This coming from a leader of a large flock of sheep. A political leader giving him a very large megaphone ("Obama spoke to him"?! Haha...I think not...sounds like McClurkin ran the show). When the same political leader was too embarrassed to support the truest spiritual progressives led by Tikkun's Rabbi Michael Lerner. Enough said.
At Facebook: The 12/12 Campaign / Harry Taylor for Congress 2008
by Iddybud on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:28:06 AM PDT
unless saying the same crap all over again, but now at a campaign sponsored event covered by press around the world is somehow "progress".
EENR Blog: Where issues come first
by okamichan13 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:30:02 PM PDT
like McClurkin and rewarding them by paying them to perform for you is an endorsement of what they do.
McClurkin knows both side of the issue. He's been there. He chooses to go the route he goes because it's the most expedient route to his wealth. Being ex-gay and preaching against GLBT people is how he makes his living. He knows he is still gay and nothing has changed but if he were to admit that he would be exposed as the fraud he is and he would be stripped of his ministry at the megachurch he founded and all that comes with it.
by Cali Techie on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:41:44 AM PDT
(eventhough it's repetition):
link The Advocate: How did this happen? Senator Obama: Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues--at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see. Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn't undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have. ... Look, these kinds of issues are going to crop up inevitably through the course of campaigns. It's important to recognize that these are issues that every Democratic candidate who has African-American ministers as supporters may have to confront. It just so happened that it popped up on the screen in this particular instance. But I assure you, I am not the only candidate who's got a black minister or a white minister who's supporting them prominently who subscribe to similar views. Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don't think the LGBT community of the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them. Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done. I believe that's important. We can try to pretend these issues don't exist and then be surprised when a gay marriage amendment pops up and is surprisingly successful in a state. I think the better strategy is to take it head on and we've got to show up. These people of faith may be operating in part out of unfamiliarity, or they may be insular in terms of how they're viewing LGBT issues, they may not understand how what they say may be hurtful, and the only way for us to be able to communicate that is to show up.... My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with [evangelicals]. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights. At some point, if we are going to have a conversation on these issues, what I expect to be judged by in the LGBT community is, have I been a strong advocate, have I been a forceful advocate, have I avoided these issues in any way. And if I have not, then that's how I expect to be judged.
link
The Advocate: How did this happen?
Senator Obama: Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues--at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see.
Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn't undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have.
...
Look, these kinds of issues are going to crop up inevitably through the course of campaigns. It's important to recognize that these are issues that every Democratic candidate who has African-American ministers as supporters may have to confront. It just so happened that it popped up on the screen in this particular instance. But I assure you, I am not the only candidate who's got a black minister or a white minister who's supporting them prominently who subscribe to similar views.
Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don't think the LGBT community of the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.
Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done. I believe that's important. We can try to pretend these issues don't exist and then be surprised when a gay marriage amendment pops up and is surprisingly successful in a state. I think the better strategy is to take it head on and we've got to show up. These people of faith may be operating in part out of unfamiliarity, or they may be insular in terms of how they're viewing LGBT issues, they may not understand how what they say may be hurtful, and the only way for us to be able to communicate that is to show up....
My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with [evangelicals]. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights.
At some point, if we are going to have a conversation on these issues, what I expect to be judged by in the LGBT community is, have I been a strong advocate, have I been a forceful advocate, have I avoided these issues in any way. And if I have not, then that's how I expect to be judged.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:46:41 AM PDT
You can't communicate with people like McClurkin and rewarding them by paying them to perform for you is an endorsement of what they do.
I can play this game all day too.
by Cali Techie on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:49:08 AM PDT
above
by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:51:29 AM PDT
You've made your point and I've made mine. Going around in endless circles is useless, which is what I was getting at.
We disagree. Strongly. That's OK. You can believe what he says, but his actions are speaking louder than his words on this issue. I used to support Obama. I choose to no longer support him. End of story.
by Cali Techie on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:53:28 AM PDT
and not recommend anymore racist diaries. Stop beating a dead horse. Both sides now are further apart than together.
This Week With Barack Obama. Because you need to stay informed.
by icebergslim on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:20:10 AM PDT
Getting in one more dig is not "letting it go".
Well Dayum! The Fat Lady just sang her tits right off!
by homogenius on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:08:33 AM PDT
a racist diary. TS84 made a clearly false accusation and even admitted I never recommended it.
I find racism abhorrent period and I would never ever recommend a diary that endorsed it.
by Cali Techie on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:35:04 AM PDT
View Story | 513 comments | Autorefresh Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always) Daily Kos Help I'll delete this (9+ / 18-) Recommended by:burrow owl, Tom P, homogenius, ExStr8, asskicking annie, galore, Cali Techie, The Werewolf Prophet, Jacques Trollrated by:jennybravo, Better Days, musing85, shayera, zenbowl, WIds, casperr, arielle, MajorFlaw, turnover, Jennifer Clare, Pager, Potus2020, bigpappa10834, Mother of Zeus, icebergslim, joy sinha, Bartimaeus Blue
View Story | 513 comments | Autorefresh
Daily Kos Help I'll delete this (9+ / 18-) Recommended by:burrow owl, Tom P, homogenius, ExStr8, asskicking annie, galore, Cali Techie, The Werewolf Prophet, Jacques Trollrated by:jennybravo, Better Days, musing85, shayera, zenbowl, WIds, casperr, arielle, MajorFlaw, turnover, Jennifer Clare, Pager, Potus2020, bigpappa10834, Mother of Zeus, icebergslim, joy sinha, Bartimaeus Blue
I think this supports my theory that recs' were made and then maybe un rec'd. (perhaps when the fire got to hot...) Maybe you owe an apology.
~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~
by jennybravo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:57:57 PM PDT
This is the rec for a COMMENT, not the DIARY. You could have pulled the recommenders for the diary (you know, the "View Recommenders" link just below the big ole RECOMMEND button) to show who actually recommended the diary.
What you found isn't nearly as interesting (or as telling) as what you have shown.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke
by carolita on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:19:26 PM PDT
was for the first comment harvey made saying he would not remove the racist diary. I consider that a rec of his diary. If he thought it was racist and ugly, he wouldn't have recommened that he keep it up.
That is what I meant when I said it supports my theory that diary recs can be made and then undone.
by jennybravo on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:05:11 PM PDT
Now you're doing what TS84 did - jumping to and making accusations with no real evidence to back any of it up.
And just because I understand and support the point HM was trying to make does not mean I endorse racism. HM was trying to demonstrate how hurtful Obama's invitation of McClurkin is to the LGBT community. He went for shock value and it blew up on him. He has apologized, but apparently those who would like us to forgive Obama for his gaffe (without an apology I might add) are unwilling to do the same for HM even though he has apologized.
At any rate TS84 was still caught in multiple fibs. Just because s/he disagrees with someone doesn't give him/her the right to accuse them of doing something they didn't do and then try to cover his/her tracks with more falsehoods.
by Cali Techie on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:14:52 AM PDT
rec'ing a comment is not the same as rec'ing the diary. I stand behind my actions.
by Cali Techie on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:17:21 AM PDT
by jennybravo on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:44:35 AM PDT
annefrank is nowhere in that list, and she was called out specifically by TS84.
by Cali Techie on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:20:22 AM PDT
I did not see the original diary, but it sounds as if an apology is needed.
I disagree with Obama's choice of McClurkin and his addition of a white, gay minister for balance after the firestorm of criticism.
I have not said much, because I am so identified with supporting another candidate that my opinion would be discounted by some. The truth is that my opinion of Barack Obama has gone down from this. (Of course, some Obama supporters will doubt my sincerity, as a few often do, but it is real. I am disappointed in his choices. As bad as Clinton is on some issues, she is better on this.)
That said, however, it is important that oppressed people not use the imagery of the oppressor against other oppressed folks.
Beng gay does not allow the use of racist imagery. It's wrong and hurtful.
In addition, being black does not allow for promotion of homophobia, includuing the promotion of Mr. McClurklin and use of him to promote a candidacy. It's wrong and hurtful.
It is hard to apologize and I am glad you did.
"There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08
by TomP on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:53:35 AM PDT
you should have not commented. Period.
by icebergslim on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:21:07 AM PDT
I can speak.
Who are you to tell me not to comment?
I held back on Obama on this.
by TomP on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:24:59 AM PDT
How big of you.
by MajorFlaw on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:19:04 AM PDT
have been stirred. But you expressed your opinion that somehow this makes you feel worse about Edwards who was never part of this controversy. I stood back and was startled not knowing how to help with the different kinds of pain being felt in the AA community and the gay community. I felt the confusion and the suffering on the many sides of the debate. My heart ached for everyone but there was no comforting statement I could find.
However after you but blame on Edwards I find it distressing that you would suggest that someone else cannot express what they think and feel. It is hard on everyone. This issue had NOTHING to do with Edwards and the political issue you have in your home.
In fact I have seen Obama, Clinton and Edwards supporters all over the place about this issue. It will be solved by human understanding and not by political posturing.
Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:34:37 AM PDT
I am deeply hurt by this. Totally upset.
I am talking, writing as a Black Woman. You guys are too partisian. I am not writing as a supporter of anyone, but someone who was hurt by those photos. I was so upset I could not talk to cosbo, yesterday. I could not and she is my friend.
So, please do not tell me how I should feel or respond to this. This is something I am dealing with, it is.
People want to make a political partisian point out of this. I don't. All of us should be shocked, ashamed and outright embarrassed by that diary. We should all be flooding the FP and kos for an excuse why this diary was even allowed to stay put.
But noone but a few did that. Why? Because we are all into beating up on one side or another. That diary and the diarist is racist. How can I not look at it any other way?
So, don't speak to me about this side or the other. I don't care. I am totally upset, with tears in my eyes as I type this. What has happened should not be acceptable by all facets of this community.
by icebergslim on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:49:00 AM PDT
but I have seen you be completely callous about the feelings of gay people since this happened. I have seen you threaten the democratic party with the loss of the black vote if we didn't shut up because if the people in SC got wind that we were making an issue of this they wouldn't like it. So we should just accept their bigotry and keep silent.
by MollyStark on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:59:06 AM PDT
This was an isolated incident. And the problems of the gay issues, transcends to my family. And what Obama did was a political move, but one with lack of vetting, and I said that also. You can continue to beat a dead horse, but the wedges are set and the divide is in.
by icebergslim on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:22:51 AM PDT
there you go again. Time after time, no concern for the real feelings of other people hurt by this action. It's just a dead horse to you and only your feelings and your opinion matter. And yes I have seen you threaten the party with a loss of votes for because some of us have an issue with bigotry in the AA churches in SC and else where. My point is when are you going to apologize and get real about it? When are you going to care as much about that bigotry as we all care about racism?
by MollyStark on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:56:07 PM PDT
YOU were the one who brought Edwards into the discussion. I felt pain for the human side of everyone gays and AAs. So don't dump on me for being partisan.
I feel for your pain, ice, but it does not excuse your making it a partisan issue when it was not.
This is an issue that no one wins because it involves hate and exclusion felt by members of different communities.
by pioneer111 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:21:29 AM PDT
I am done with this. Edwards is my second choice, what happened yesterday made my husband angry and put him back on the fence. I can not explain why, that is his story to tell, but he was angry and upset that an Edwards suppoter would put a diary like that up. That is his thing. My thing is that this site would allow this diary to stay put, that is my issue. Have a good day. I am going perch fishing.
by icebergslim on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:25:48 AM PDT
How many times are we going to hear that your husband changed his mind about Edwards?
I sure hope you are not using that as a threat to silence Edwards supporters on important issues such as confronting homophobia.
Edwards Supporters for Obama!
by NCDem Amy on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:48:26 AM PDT
if you don't want people to speak to you regarding the subject and can't deal with the discussion. And political partisanship, isn't that exactly what you are embodying by telling the poster above he cannot speak on this issue despite everything you have said?
by okamichan13 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:26:23 AM PDT
Is this not a public diary? He was honest and respectful and up front that he supports another candidate! Why would he not be able to comment?
by Ellinorianne on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:43:15 AM PDT
else what they should or should not comment in or on or about!
Give it an almighty frigging rest! You are so hollier than thou it is turning my stomach everytime I see a comment from you, and exactly how many diaries are you going to use the " my husband" line?
by America08 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:54:11 AM PDT
"I want my voice to be heard"
are there some voices then that just don't matter? Pretty condescending.
by okamichan13 on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:15:17 AM PDT
Apologizing is hard and take s a big person with a big heart to do it.
I wish I could give you more rec's but I only got one! :)
Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow
by Pager on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:06:48 AM PDT
Thanks for fessing up and apologizing!
As a student and teacher of communication I think that folks from different kinds of communities do abuse stereo-types.
Pretty clearly, you blew it.
That said, I assert that pandering to bigots is the greater crime.
by kidneystones on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:05:54 PM PDT
HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.
by kck on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:52:39 AM PDT
Such is the insidious seepage of bigotry.
He could have and can still take Harvey Milk's lead and apologize and seek restitution.
Bigotry breeds bigotry breeds more bigotry... GLBT citizens don't need Obama to build bridges to bigots. Christians who are largely Democrats don't need him to build bridges to the faith community - we are the fucking faith community. He's the one buying into RW wackoid GOP smearage.
Those bridges are better without Obama's clumsy half assed electioneering at our expense. I'm angry at him over these two issues he has kept in the forefront purely for political reasons at the expense of Americans.
by kck on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:27:08 PM PDT
a hundred 4s for this:
Bigotry breeds bigotry breeds more bigotry... GLBT citizens don't need Obama to build bridges to bigots. Christians who are largely Democrats don't need him to build bridges to the faith community - we are the fucking faith community. He's the one buying into RW wackoid GOP smearage. Those bridges are better without Obama's clumsy half assed electioneering at our expense.
Those bridges are better without Obama's clumsy half assed electioneering at our expense.
by MollyStark on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 03:20:37 PM PDT
I'm angry at this whole unnecessary topic. I noticed that I'm filled with anger today in the first place...so, maybe taking a little opportunity to vent here but it's a shame this has to take up air. And here in San Diego County the air is in shorter supply than usual.
I never heard of this performer and it's a natural mistake given the size of these campaign operations. All Obama had to do was pounce. He could still just announce that the singer had a conflict and could not perform. Over. No apologies needed - they're only meaningful if they're immediate and unrequested.
After almost a week in the wild fire threads 24x7, I'm astonished to "come back" to the fp and diaries and Obama's dumfuk gospel singer topic is still boiling.
HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth m
