An apology, and the results of the big election.

The last diary I wrote but didn't post was titled "you fools".  So you know (essentially) where I'm coming from.

Rather than post that post, I have decided, after taking a break, I will take a different tack.  You see, what I realize, is that my realizations are not the be-all and end-all of every realization in the whole world.

In reality, I have realized this sort of thing for a long time.  I just didn't know (and still do not) know how to respond to it.

I have in the last several months, damaged my credibility.  I did this by promising that which I did not, and in my heart of hearts, had some intention, at the time, of delivering but no readiness.  Not out of intention, necessarily, but out of fear, and out of caring, or lack thereof, for specific people or groups of people.

In particular, I wish to apologize to teacherken, and to Robyn, and to people within that particular sphere, and to people who may believe that religion is valid.

You see, people irritate me.  And, I telecommute, and while I do not lack a conceit of lacking bravery, I get a little crazy from time to time.  

I lashed out at (and continue to lash out at) people I should not have.  

To me, and from where I come from, there is an obvious reality.  What I realize is that "where I come from" is a place that may not be familiar to some.

So here is where I am right now, and now know I have been for a long while:

I am many things, but belong to none of those things.

I am gay, but I do not speak for gay people, and am not like most gay people.

I am a geek, but I do not speak for geeks, and am not like most geeks.

I am a middle class person (well, a lower middle class person, at least) but I do not speak for middle class people.

I do not speak for any of these people.

But, I have to tell you, as whatever type of person I am, credibility, no credibility, person or non person, group or non group, I am, I not only laugh, but I think is damaging, is Democratic candidates talking about "unity", "conviction", or anything remotely similar to same.

Look at this, if you please:

People in prison can get married, but gay people cannot.

In Virginia, people of the same sex cannot even conclude contracts between each other, because of the risk that these people of the same sex might want to suck each others' dicks -- and make no mistake, I didn't say "dicks" out of misogyny, but out of the male-orientedness of American society today.

So here in a nutshell is what I think and I wonder if I am crazy:

American culture is bifurcating.  We are losing cohesion with conservatives.  They do not believe the things we believe.  They do not hold the principles we hold.

Let me be clear:  I do not take this lightly.  Members of (all the members of, except myself) my immediate family do or do not consider themselves conservative.  We have a little civil war brewing, folks, and the hatred involved may explain much.

Anyway, as for me, I am having trouble with the Democratic Party and with the candidates that have been presented as palatable to date.

I want to talk about why I have left Daily Kos for the time being (I may be back) .. because there are at least two:

#1.  I have gone crazy enough that I do not trust myself to say or do the right thing given the situation, and

#2  I am being driven crazy enough by the hypocrisy and the insanity of the candidate supporters.

When Obama supporters talk about unity, I laugh.  

I don't just laugh because the Obama campaign stole this from Edwards, but because of my own history on this board.  I have been called a racist, and a "Snow Queen" (I have come to understand this epithet as someone pretending to be white) because I am a white man and support a white man.

Let me be clear:  I am a white, homosexual, non religious man, who supports (more or less) a white, heterosexual, baptist, basically (no offense, lol!) homophobic prick of a straight man (John Edwards).

You heard me right:  John Edwards is a homophobic prick.  And among the candidates and especially among the Democratic candidates, he is the best one.

What I am risking by saying this, is you on Daily Kos troll rating me.

The problem is, for me, he is the best of the bunch, and why I support him.  

Here is the problem with partisanship, in the final analysis:  You wind up being coopted as part of a coalition that, in the broad perspective, advocates for your destruction, only, perhaps, less so than the opposition.

On Daily Kos, the overwhelming sentiment is, we have candidates that are better by far than their opponents.

Here, for me, is the problem:  That sentiment is true.  That sentiment may even be historical.  We have in the past have had people who have been far worse, and have proven far better leaders in the final analysis.  Only, here's the problem:  The mainstream candidates, as pushed by the right wing media, are all rotten to the core.  All of them.  "Better" or "worse" being a relative appellation.

I have been wrestling with this understanding for months, more with clarity after taking a break from Daily Kos than before.

The problem is, always, in the final analysis, what worked before will not work now:

#1:  The technology that is under political discussion is at least two generations behind the current technology:

What has to be understood is, America's Military Industrial Complex has been allowed to operate, virtually without supervision, for 20 years.   And as of now, to question the wisdom of the MIC, is to question one's political career.  But this will not survive the first serious military engagement with their theory of battle.  

#2:  We have no experience with genuinely technologically adept aggressors.

#3:  The social debate is detracting from dealing with THIS.

Anyway:  If you're gay, you have the following choices:

1.  Hillary Clinton:  Scion of betrayers

Do you really trust her?  As importantly, do you really think, given her campaign rhetoric, if you support her, she will not slap you to the curb and betray you?  If you supported her before, after all that the Clinton administration of the 90's did .. why would she not betray you now?  After all, the Clintons have learned there is no cost for betrayal.  If HRC is not forced to make ironclad promises to the gay community, my belief is, she will betray us as Bill Clinton betrayed us, without apology.

2.  Barack Obama:  Apologists for Republicans and Ex-Gay curers of gays.

Ok, lest anyone think me unfair for saying this:  Obama's campaign was warned about this.  And elected to do it anyway.

And beyond this, they apologized for Donnie McClurkin by using the term "happy gays" (as in, "happy gays need not be afraid of being converted to heterosexuals by Jeyussusss").

Ok, well.

I'm not happy.  What about you?

Here's the problem with the perception of the heterosexual majority:

You make us unhappy.

And by this, I mean something quite concrete.

I can't ask you, a male of unknown orientation, of my species, as wondering and opining and thinking, perhaps an orientation to our own species as being indicative of HUMANITY as,being operative:  Why don't you?

What do you say to the notion that every action of your homophobic leaders has been designated to making us, homosexuals, unhappy?

So if I am unhappy, why don't you "cure" us?

The issue being, if you as a society have investigated every effort to make us unhappy, to displease us, to depress, and alientate us, then why don't you cure me with Jesus?

Only, wait!

Strangely, it takes JESUS for you to make me not-unhappy.  

Explain to me, please, why this is so.  Every other medical endeavor, every situation, every effort, on medical issue after medical issue after medical issue, is, this:  our so-called medical situation (in terms of homosexuality, and homosexuality ONLY) is to be explained in the context of JESUS.

Explain to me, please, why it is so, that every other medical condition in the world is treatable by understanding people, is somehow then curable by then being understood in the context of CHRISTIANTIY as a RELIGION and not by ANY OTHER MEANS.

So here is what makes me unhappy:

1.  I don't want you curing me, restraing me against my will, opining on what I need, or politically distorting what I want.

2.  I don't want my unhappiness contextified as the idea that I am gay, and therefore, unhappy.  Perhaps I am more unhappy because, not only are you straight, but I cannot do what you straight people can do, because you hate and control.

3.  If you want, if you want me to give you what you seem to need, yes, I am unhappy.

I am not unhappy though, because of some fundamental truth, I am unhappy because of the lies of the conservative majority, and they are insidious lies that can be used in many ways.  INCLUDING AGAINST LIBERALS.

I am not unhappy ENOUGH.

I am MORE unhappy because I hear progressive people, even my friends, say, "there are more important things, more important issues, than gays".  Them, knowing, I am gay.

Here is the problem with this reasoning:

There have been More Important Things for you, the heterosexual majority, to consider, since the 50's if not before.

But, um, you, heterosexuals, have not SOLVED the PROBLEM.

So, anyway, here is the problem with the candidates, as I see:

Hillary Clinton:  BETRAYER.
John Edwards:  GLAD-HANDER.
Barack Obama:  EVIL BACKSTABBING MOTHERFUCKER (SEE: HILLARY CLINTON, only in the PRESENT, as opposed to the PAST).

And Barack Obama supporters on Daily Kos dare to post diaries on Unity and Change:

Let me give you a clue:

Your candidate doesn't represent unity and change.  He represents more of the same.

If your candidate really represented unity and change, he would have understood "our" (and by that, I mean, that of gay males, of which I am a constituent) concerns.

We are not HAPPY GAYS which is what Obama said he doesn't have an issue with.  We are very UNHAPPY GAYS and we WANT CHANGE.

By the same token, I franky fear Obama Change.

I frankly, fear fascism and gay hatred leading to our extermination.  Not joking, no.

I think Obama may exterminate us.  Or, if he does not, he will lead to the Administration that will.

And, yes, this is sincere.  From one of two hundred million americans, who is inteligent and does pay attention, it is.

In the end, in conclusion, let me. you., my heterosexual friends, get, and understand, a clue:

Because you ARE the majority of my friends.

Because I do NOT hate you.

I want you all to understand this:  your rights are expendable.  And your rights are contingent on the least of us.  But "the least" is contingent on a number of factors:  Iam relatively economically comfortable, and not dark skinned.  I understand that that lifestyle might be very different:  I understand that if you are dark skinned, you wil be discriminated against, and I understand this:  THIS is the way America works.

Finally, I want to ask Kossacks this:

Your candidates want to deny me my fundamental (FUNDAMENTAL!!) rights.

Explain to me, how any of you, in good conscience, can harangue others, to vote for your candidate, and get ugly about it.  I'm quite serious, because here is the situation:

From my perspective, when I go on the political blogs, I am hearing people telling me I am being trite and petty and full of bullshit, should I have the perspective that none of the candidates actually deserves my vote.

MY VOTE depends on first and foremost the Bill of Rights.  But, from my perspective, none of your Democratic Candidates believes in the Bill of Rights.

You say, on Daily Kos, that each of the Democratic Candidates is better than any of the Republican ones.

That may be true.

To me, though, it is the difference between cars that are in the junkyard and cars that are in the worst used car dealership in the world.

in the final analysis, I believe this:  Any of your candidates on the Democratic side (or even the Republican side) have the right to ASK.

You have no right to DEMAND.  Your candidates, and your positions, have not earned that right.  Or even if you have, I don't care: , my fundamental civil rights trumps that.

yes, I believe that, by the way:  My right to fundamental civil rights trumps your rights to expectactions for a certain result in a given election.
(
And I will say this also:  You (centerists) had me.  You lost me.  

By contrast, here is my perspective.  All of your candidates has abandoned the gay vote.

Your candidates cannot commit to full participation in gay rights.  They cannot commit even to something as simple as advocating that gay people should be allocated something as simple as people in prison are permitted.

Frankly, from my perspective, I do not and should not have to care about anything beyond that.

You all do not have the right to my vote.  I want you to admit that.  I want you to own it.  I want you to suck on it, to be honest.

You on Daily Kos want to talk about Ralph Nader.  I am not a Naderite; neither am I a corporatist.  I voted for Gore; I voted for Kerry.

This election, I vote for John Edwards.

God grant the day I do not have to advocate for the best of all evils.  

All that having been said,I have been unkind to people.   And that is why I have been gone.  

•  i recced ...

  ... and then un-recced.

  i recced because, even though i have no idea what the battles were between you and Robyn, i appreciate your apology.

  i un-recced, however, because it was turning into another candidate diary.

  but i do want to say good luck to you, and i don't think you're crazy, not at all.

  but i do think you need to get out more often. but i think that of 5/7ths of the people here. :D so ... nothing personal. [yet another] but i think you would feel a lot better if you did. dKos isn't the world, y'know.

  by Runs With Scissors on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:29:09 AM PDT

  •  I crack up when people start bragging

    how they wrote 287 diaries last year and 16,000 comments coming in at # 9.

    I am often left wondering...Get a fricking life!

    I spend way too much time here and I've done 900+ comments in 2 years with most of those in garden blogging.

    Good morning RSW and Andy.

    Don't beat yourself up too much. We all make asses of ourselves from time to time.

    by Brahman Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:46:44 AM PDT

    •  yea

      i mean, it's not like i don't understand. when i was hideously underemployed --- and underpaid --- and still in the stratosphere with rage over the invasion of Iraq [which took me like 3 years to come down from] and other things --- and quitting smoking and blah blah blah, dKos was a great vent hole.

      but these days ... not so much.

      although i am still grateful that i vented on dKos and not out there in the world, as i probably would have gotten myself locked up in prison in Bulgaria.

      speaking of garden blogging, i wake up early on Satursday just so i won't miss it. :D i can't open diaries when they get too big or have too many pics, so i sacrifice my one of two mornings when i could actually catch some zzz's for it.

      by Runs With Scissors on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:53:14 AM PDT

  •  Well, it's a piss poor candidate diary, if it is

    that.

    And yes, I have been tagged already as an Edwards supporter on the DK blogs -- not denying any of the past.

    You are very right that I need to get out more often!

    I have meant to post a diary on the relative insanity of being an obligate telecommuter.  It really does lead to insanity of a type most people never encounter!  Not that I am complaining.  I mean, most people have it rougher than I when it comes to having to be at a job at 9 a.m.!  

    Daily Kos, truly, isn't the world.  Which is why I decided to take a break!

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:12:43 AM PDT

    •  haha!

      well, because all the dKossian biliousness about Clinton has made me more sympathetic to her, i'm sure i've been tagged as a Hillary supporter.

      man, if they only knew. :D

      but it just goes to show why, in matters like this, it's not wise to take dKos too seriously. i suspect some of these people haven't left the house in two years, except to participate in partisan events.

      by Runs With Scissors on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:44:13 AM PDT

  •  By the way, RWS, I almost never do this,

    but I would ask for your rec back:  It would mean a lot to me.

    The reason I ask for it is, I want to challenge you on the substance.

    Why, if I may ask, is this a candidate diary to you?  Do you disagree on the analysis presented?  How so?  

    I want people to understand how their morality is present in the candidates they select, and what they ask for and demand of their candidates.  

    I do not have any issues, per se, on the idea that some of my very bestest friends might choose Obama, or Clinton, on the merits as they see them.

    What I do ask, and do want, is for them to not dismiss, disregard, and disrespect, the history, as far as gay rights are concerned.

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:41:59 AM PDT

    •  once you un-rec, you can't re-rec

      besides, i just spilled freshly cooked salmon all over the floor (and me) - and i have a little coonhound mix puppy. !! i have to clean it up and change clothes or i'll be sniffed to death and pursued all over the house til she finally trees me. :D

      by Runs With Scissors on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:46:35 AM PDT

•  Andy

  I am sorry for the pain you feel.  You are however misinformed.  McClurkin made the happy gay remarks.  Not Obama. Obama is the only candidate who supports  federal civil unions.  Of course you seem not to want to hear this as is your right. Just wanted to set the record straight.

  by Robinswing on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:30:21 AM PDT

  •  Clinton also supports civil unions, however this

    is neither here nor there.

    Hi Andy, I don't know you on the terms of those everyday dkos members you mention, but I was very intrigued by your diary. It's entirely understandable why you would support Edwards in light of his progressive campaign platform that contrasts the centrist policies of the other two front runners. But, I would just like to add a little perspective as to why America is not a progressive nation.

    We are only now contemplating, a near 50 years after civil and feminist rights, an African-American and a woman as president. We are an industrialized nation that falls repulsively behind our counterparts in progressivism and humanism.

    Don't let your frustration of what this country actually is, cloud your belief in what it can become. Continue to fight for your rights and know that there are a growing number of progressives that will continue to fight for them right along with you. We won't stop until the possibilities of what the founding fathers laid down is realized in it's entirety.

    by xobehtedistuo on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:03:35 AM PDT

    •  I get frustrated frankly, and it turns into me

      becoming a jerk.  Not that I am excusing myself -- I am realizing there is a bit of jerkiness I have about myself  I need to combat.

      The reason I get frustrated is, left to their own devices, leftists cannot be bothered to utter the word gay., even the most left of the left.

      They cannot acknowledge, and in the name of assimilation, they talk about resistance and then, unconsciously, in my estimtation, submit.

      Like I said, it's not an excuse for my own personal decorum or lack thereof.

      by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:21:43 AM PDT

  •  That's an example of part of what Andy said

    Obama is the only candidate who supports  federal civil unions.

    So what. That's not marriage. That's not equality. Andy likely is aware of Obama's position. As Andy said:

    Your candidates cannot commit to full participation in gay rights.  They cannot commit even to something as simple as advocating that gay people should be allocated something as simple as people in prison are permitted.

    It's utterly fascinating -- in a revolting way -- to watch candidates try to buy our votes by telling us of the ways they can provide a system that has all the rights of marriage. We already have something that gives all the rights of marriage, it's called marriage.

    If you insist on creating a separate status for LGBT folks, a great way to hold us at arm's length, then once again it's people who aren't LGBT telling the LGBT community what it needs, what it is allowed to have, etc. I believe we call that heterosexual privilege.

    by pucknomad on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:12:13 AM PDT

  •  Hey Robinswing,

    Edwards supports Federal Civil Unions, too.   He says gay couples should have all of the 1,100 rights that the gov't affords to straight couples.

    Also, gay adoption, which is currently illegal in my state of Florida.

    And, he has an LGBT page, which Obama does not (or at least, I have been unable to find one on the occasions that I have looked).

    [John Edwards] supports civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples.

    by Newzie on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:28:30 AM PDT

    •  I'm not advocating for Obama

      I just wanted to clear up a mis-statement. If Edwards is also in favor of civil unions good on him.  Good on anyone who is in favor of equality under the law.

       I live in a state where gay adoption happens with frequency.  I think anyone who wants to be married should .  Ii have spent the better part of my life battling discrimination.  Doesn't matter if it's about blacks or women or LGBT.  It's wrong.

      I also wanted to acknowledge his pain.

      by Robinswing on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:54:06 AM PDT

  •  Not true, Obama's campaign made the happy gay

    remarks, in relation to, and as a defense of, the McClurkin controversy.  Anyway, it doesn't matter.  Only Obama matters AFAIAC.

    Obama's campaign (whether is is Obama himself) has and has had the opportunity to defuse this at any point.

    He hasn't.  And, I don't believe he will.

    And frankly, what of it?  Who cares?  Does Obama support civil rights for gays or doesn't he?  I am tired, as I said in my post, of all the candidates.

    They either believe in the bill of rights and in the Supreme Court decisions to this date or they don't.  I don't care about anything subjunctive to that.

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:56:23 AM PDT

    •  P.S.

      Is this or is this not true?

      http://www.americablog.com/...

      This is Obama's campaign, not McClurkin.

      But beyond that, you shouldn't go much beyond this point:

      Obama's supporters promised beforehand that McClurkin was merely on hand to sing:  not true.  They promised he wouldn't opine on the morality of being gay:  not true.  They promised they would have another moral leader on hand to counteract any bullshit.  True.  They promised such a person really would counteract such bullshit:  not true.

      by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:59:56 AM PDT

    •  try this

      http://lesbianlife.about.com/...

      You will also find a link about all of the candidates and their stands on LGBT issues.

      by Robinswing on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:24:19 AM PDT

      •  Hi Robin, maybe I'm missing something?

        You said this:

        You are however misinformed.  McClurkin made the happy gay remarks.  Not Obama.

        I am saying this: Obama's campaign (not Obama himself, though in my perspective it hardly matters) made the happy gay remarks I was referring to.

        You said I was misinformed.

        I don't want to plow through an article to find where you are saying I'm misinformed.  I want you to support the assertion.  I read your article.

        I don't care about Obama's stand on gay issues or anyone else's within this narrow context.  

        It would be honorable of you to back off your assertion I was misinformed as to the happy gays remark, unless you have hard and fast information I was wrong.

        by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:30:54 AM PDT

        •  Andy

          I'm not fighting with you.  I'm not advocating for Obama.  You wrote this

          We are not HAPPY GAYS which is what Obama said he doesn't have an issue with.

          and that was what I was responding to.  He didn't say that.  Even the link you provided was reporting McClurkins view not Obamas.  However I took the trouble to copy the full statement from the Washington Post article Ameriblog used as it's basis.

          Aides gave reporters a three-page memo detailing McClurkin's and Obama's views on gay rights that noted in capital letters "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS," with quotes detailing those statements from the singer.

          note..from the singer.  That would be McClurkin.  Not Obama.

          Again,I'm not fighting with you.

          by Robinswing on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:57:52 AM PDT

          •  This is an Obama campaign statement.

            As such, since he quotes it in his defense, it might as well have come from Obama himself; I'm not misinformed: I've been over and over this issue, I've read practically every article there is to read about it, including the culture defense.

            This statement, to be clear, the statement you are quoting, and to repeat, came from Obama's campaign headquarters as a defense of the Obama campaign actions in using McClurkin, whether McClurkin opined this before is of no consequence.  You are admitting, in effect, that Obama's campaign is parrotting McClurkin's views.  And they also show they understand McClurkin's perspective, which is if anything even worse, it's not a quote, it's a paraphrase of a philosophy.

            First of all, I want you to acknowledge the fact that what I said on its face was true.  The quote didn't come from Mclurkin.  The quote came from the Obama campaign.  For you to say I'm "misinformed" as to this crucial fact is not, in my opinion, good practice.

            Moreover, as a broader issue:

            I do not give a flying frack what Obama did before or said before on the issue of gay rights.  I only care what he says and what he's going to do in the future.  Because, for me, only the future matters, what he did or did not do in Illinois has no effect on me or any other gay person.

            He has had months .. MONTHS .. to correct for this and to show he is not an enemy of gays and gay rights, given the past usage of not only McClurkin, but other homophobes, in his campaign.

            Moreover, Obama has known for a long time he would be angling for the presidency, as has Clinton, as has Edwards, they would all have had ample opportunity to structure their votes in such a way as to structure the issues in the most positive light.

            ------

            You say you are not fighting me but you are trying to muddle the issue:  The statement was made from the Obama campaign.  Straight out.  

            The statement I am misinformed is, to me, on its face, absurd.

            You are fighting, fighting to ignore the obvious truth.  Obama's campaign made this statement.  They even put it in capital letters.  Any interpretation beyond that is a matter of opinion, granted.

            And that's what my blog post is: Interpretation.

            If you don't like the interpretation, go after that.  But don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

            So, that being said, I am more than willing to give Obama a chance.  Truth to be told, chance after chance.  But I have no faith in failure, and pandering to people like Reagan supporters.  

            by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM PDT

            •  I'm just into whole statements

              Not bits and pieces that fuel anger and create confusion.
              The whole statement

              The concert was to be the highlight of this outreach and while the crowd left excited, it was clear the campaign still regarded the controversy as complicated. Aides gave reporters a three-page memo detailing McClurkin's and Obama's views on gay rights that noted in capital letters "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS," with quotes detailing those statements from the singer.

              The next paragraph then stated "OBAMA DOES NOT AGREE WITH MCCLURKIN'S VIEWS ON GAYS."

              I said you were misinformed.  If you still reading this think that Obama's campaign made the statement about 'happy gays', it's on you and you are free to do so.

              You are angry.  I am not saying you have no right to be so.  I sought to ease some of that anger.  Apparently I failed.  Forgive me if you can. Peace.

              by Robinswing on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:18:17 AM PDT

              •  Obama has had the opportunity

                since McClurkin, to disavow the view that only "happy gays" need not be concerned with his policies, specifically.

                You know and I know that saying "I disagree with so-and-so's views" while at the same time continuing to sponser them is not enough.  You would agree this was not enough, I think, were it a racial issue or a gender issue or any other kind of identity issue.

                I have been more than fair with Obama and his campaign, especially in light of the fact he would not have been treated as kindly in any other context.

                Really, I've had it with your defense/apologia of Obama.  And I am angry.  You would be too, if it were you and yours.

                The happy gays statement was specifically made by Obama's campaign as a DEFENSE of its actions.  It was a JUSTIFICATION.  You're damned right I am angry: you are twisting and distorting the sequence of events as it occurred.

                In all honesty, I've given Obama more fairness than he deserves; I've given him more fairness than he would get in any other context.  

                I have also been reasonable: beyond reasonable: I've told you what I want:

                1.  I want you to admit that you were wrong in your despicable assessment that I was misinformed without verifying the quote's veracity, or its source.

                2.  I want you to now admit that the context you are using is twisted:  Obama's campaign used this remark as a defense, and the statement that he "disagrees" with McClurkin's attitude is ill informed on your part in that AFTER the statement was made, he continued to associate his campaign with McClurkin.

                3.  I want you to acknowledge all these facts in deference to the fact that it is more than fair for me to attack Obama on this point.  If Obama wanted to disassociate himself from McClurkin more fully; he has had ample time to do so.

                4.  Please acknowledge the sequence of events and the historical context in which this apologia was offered: it was offered after the Obama campaign was informed of McClurkin's homophobia and specifically and categorically refused to change its actions.  It was offered after specific promises were made and then broken, among these, notably the defense that McClurkin was only going to be a gospel singer and was not going to offer more homophobia.

                And now I'm going to defend my use of the term "despicable":  No one would dare to offer this defense of Obama were it a race related issue.  He is responsible for his campaign's actions, just as any other Presidential candidate is.  

                That he has not addressed it since is also despicable, the only possible explanation being he doesn't have to, in his campaign's calculation.

                So, what am I, a voter, left to think?  To me, it is fair to think that if I am an unhappy gay, Obama has every beleif that it would be right and proper to stick me into a reeducation camp, or worse.

                Do I believe that, honestly?  No, but he gives aid and comfort to those who do think that way.

                So I bristle, angrily, yes, at the implication I am being in any way unfair or misinformed on THIS POINT.

                I can only hope this incident has given Obama, and his campaign, a hopefully painful lesson in the intricacies of gay related issues.  And yes, unless he in the future disavows this, I want to make it as continuous and painful a lesson as possible.  I will immediately desist on the slightest evidence he gets it.

                As for you, it is sad you have actually used this technical defense.

                by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:41:57 AM PDT

•  Hi Andy, I just woke up and my brain's all

  fuzzy so I can't even begin to make a coherent response to what you wrote. I have been wondering how you were. I saw your dust-up with teacherken.You were trying to get him to let his hair down or something, right?
  Anyway, I like you. I consider you one of my buddies. I missed you. I'm glad you're back.

  by flumptytail on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:37:39 AM PDT

  •  I was a jerk to teacherken.

    I am that way from time to time.  I suffer from it.

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:02:02 AM PDT

    •  Hey, I'm a jerk sometimes too. But you know what?

      I think you're smart and thoughtful and kind and I like you. So there.

      by flumptytail on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:43:49 AM PDT

•  AndyS,

  I always learn something new from your diaries, or you articulate something I instinctively knew, but hadn't put into words.

  Like this:

  Explain to me, please, why this is so.  Every other medical endeavor, every situation, every effort, on medical issue after medical issue after medical issue, is, this:  our so-called medical situation (in terms of homosexuality, and homosexuality ONLY) is to be explained in the context of JESUS.

  Explain to me, please, why it is so, that every other medical condition in the world is treatable by understanding people, is somehow then curable by then being understood in the context of CHRISTIANTIY as a RELIGION and not by ANY OTHER MEANS.

  Though we're not always on the same page, your diaries always make me think.

  by fiddler crabby on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:06:58 AM PDT

•  I was so mad last November

  Democrats won big, aren't I happy? (Are we out of Iraq? Is there Impeachment? Big Business taxed as it should be??) (It's a little bit better, but only a little.)

  7 of 8 anti-gay or anti-CU ballot inititives passed by larger % than expected (hoped?) ... and the one that didn't pass would have passed (it was commented) if written differently ...

  And then there was "the irony" (of the "ha-ha" variety, rather than "this is sad, we have so much more work to do") that the anti-gay voters in Wisconsin helped democrats, not republicans ... (My birthday is always in election week, and I'm always grumpy about it.)

  And the more the bigots believe they're in the overwelmning majority the more they tell themselves they're not bigots and continue to pile on the victims, and get re-energized about We have to Save the Children!! Get the Gay Agenda out of schools & don't block the Bigot Bullying Agenda

  Sickening

  by julifolo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:05:15 AM PDT