As a straight white male, I am very mindful of issues affecting a tiny minority of citizens, especially citizens who face grave injustices. For example, recently Barack Obama brazenly allowed a gospel singer to state his opinions on homosexuality -- unfavorable opinions, that is -- and his own experience with it. It was bad enough that he said homosexuality is wrong, but that he said favorable things about the Bible as well just takes the cake. And in comparison to blogs!
That's right everyone. Close your rss reader and shut down that web browser! Or at very least redirect it to biblenet [NSFW] -- Because that's what you're supposed to be reading. No blogs, read the Bible.
Seriously, what is this horseshit? I'm voting for Dukakis Hillary!
I'm tired of how easy it is to make demagogic attacks on the Obama campaign. It seems like just any idiot with a keyboard can do it! Try that with Clinton. Good luck is all I can say. Those people practically invented the vetting process. You'll never see Hillary just sit there and allow a controversial figure to talk. Oh no, that figure wouldn't be there in the first place. That's because Hillary has experience. She doesn't buy into right wing frames and she is never tone deaf. Except on military issues, where I think it's fair to say she really agrees with me but is just being politically savvy by making it look otherwise.
Now it may be that no one cares about the Mc-whatever thing outside of a few blogs, this the chief among them. It may be that ordinary people don't give a damn about what a crazy gospel singer says, no matter where he says it. And maybe I'm just crazy for thinking that a brief glimpse of what everyone knows is already there is worse than the thing in itself and that it is important to punish such outward signs and the politicians connected with them so that eventually such things disappear entirely. Maybe my belief that it's Obama's fault that such sentiment is rampant in the black community (and indeed amongst the union groups that are so important to our electoral fortunes as well -- though it's less obvious how Obama is to blame for that side of it) -- maybe that belief just shows that I'm angry and irrational, as surely some will think but will be too frightened to point out in view of the certainty of retaliatory moderation. To those I say: Go back to freeperville! You think I'm "angry"? The same way Bill O'Reilly thinks I'm "angry"? Thanks for your concern.
As we all know, Hillary has an outstanding record on issues of importance to the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community. She is closely associated with the Human Rights Campaign, which you might know as the organization that fights for equality by giving out stickers with yellow equal signs against a blue background in exchange for modest donations. Not only that, but she has taken a courageous stance on the egregious DOMA and her husband fought for gays and lesbians serving in the military in the nineties in a way no prior president had.
Yes, I am eager to see Hillary sail to victory, with all her rivals either hopelessly far behind and without the funding to catch up (Edwards, Dodd, etc.) or besieged by people like myself who insist that if someone says something illiberal, the candidate better damn well rip him a new one on the spot. Or at least weed him out in advance. And let's not forget how the last Clinton administration bolstered the prestige and wide appeal of our party. We have the golden ticket back to the nineties, just walk into that booth and punch it, baby.