It seems that every day now, I receive some e-mail announcing that this or that gay activist, elected official or organization has backed Barack Obama for president. Many are flocking to him after their recent flirtation with the ill-fated John Edwards. Former Texas State Representative Glen Maxey, the only open gay person to serve in the Texas legislature has endorsed the Illinois Senator as has the Houston LGBT political caucus.
It’s not just former Edwards supporters. Even gay Clinton backers are refusing to stand by their woman and turning to the man from Illinois.
And this despite the fact the Illinois Senator has participated in a “gospel tour” with anti-gay singer Donnie McClurkin. Not only that. As reader ILoveCapitalism pointed out in a recent comment, the Democratic frontrunner refused to have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom “at the height of the firestorm” the Mayor set off by authorizing same-sex marriages in his city.
Imagine how the media would react if Log Cabin backed a candidate who had so snubbed a politician beloved by gay activists.
I wonder if there’s not a little me-tooism in this stampede of gay activists to the Illinois Senator. They want to jump on the bandwagon of the man who appears increasingly likely to win the Democratic nomination, a man who’s beloved by the left-wing of his party, endorsed by the radical left-wing group moveon.org.
Once again, it seems gay activists seem more eager to fit in with left-wing groups than to support the candidate who is best on gay issues.
I’m not sure if the Newsom snub doesn’t reveal Big O as a shrewder politician than I thought, since Newsom was radioactive at the time. Remember, many who agree with allowing gay marriage were never the less disgusted with Newsome for acting in such a reckless fashion. Now this is not my issue-du-jour (spending, spending, spending…), but I dunno, of the three viable candidates on tour, Mr.O., despite the nit-picks listed above, would still qualify as the best of the lot, if gay stuff is your issue.
…and from our POV, Obama did the right thing by not acknowledging the lawbreaker Newsom.
sf, whether he did the right thing or not from your viewpoint… Obama snubs gays when it suits him, accepts Farrakhan support, and so forth. Yet Left gays swoon over him. Makes no sense. If, that is, one expects Left gays to be self-respecting or rational. (Which I don’t expect.)
You gotta hand it to Obama – the guy praised by the likes of Louis Farrakhan corners the lefty-gay vote. I see why Bill Clinton is so ticked – Obama is a better politician.
Of course, should Obama get elected president, it will be amusing to watch him juggle policy to please all the groups he’s pandered to. (Same goes for Sen. Clinton).
One day, they’re commiserating with the working class in Ohio; the next day, they’re hispandering in Texas. How do they keep their sob-stories straight?
<i>Yet Left gays swoon over him. Makes no sense.</i>
Makes perfect sense. He’s the best they’ve got. And for all the criticism, legit or not, leveled here and elsewhere (as if a lib would take us seriously anyway – we are self haters after all), he is light-years better than the Queen, and they know it.
PS. Did Farrakhan actually endorse Big O (and did Big O accept), or are we talking about his pastor?
Operative word *swoon*, sf. They *swoon* over him. Makes no sense. Comparison: John McCain, unfortunately, is the best I’ve got right now. Do you catch me swooning over him? Hell, no. No F-in way.
than to support the candidate who is best on gay issues.
Or any issue, for that matter.
of the three viable candidates on tour, Mr.O., despite the nit-picks listed above, would still qualify as the best of the lot, if gay stuff is your issue.
What’s the difference between Orgasman and Hillary?
Did Farrakhan actually endorse Big O (and did Big O accept), or are we talking about his pastor?
Yes and Orgasma made a half-assed attempt at distancing himself when he was cornered on TV.
On a grand scale, I’m not so sure that’s the case. Obama is aligned with people who basically want to destroy our Constitution and would behead gay people (or hang them, or throw them off a cliff)… where as Clinton just uses gay people as a voting bloc as the Democrats traditionally do with all their interest groups. She’s not associated with people who actively seek the death of gays.
The damage he would do in the next two years would be a godsend to the GOP in the ’10 elections. If we survive.
Everyone here who was annoyed to outraged at the constant harping over Mitt Romney’s religion please raise your hand. Mine is up. Those of you who raised your hand but are now using religious affiliation to attack Obama, please be reminded that you have now entered the Sullivan Zone, who questioned the religious affiliation of Romney, yet was outraged by someone else doing the same <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1200431015.shtml">for his guy Obama</a>. Do you really want to be an alternate universe Andrew Sullivan.
And BTW. there is NO evidence that Obama has ever accepted or endorsed Farrakhan. And lets face, there are plenty of religious crazies to go around on both sides of the political fence. Do I really need to drag out some of the idiotic ramblings of Robertson and Falwell?
Um… Romney never made issue about his religion. Yet the press always brought it up.. Why? To skink his chances of getting Christians to vote for him. Obama has an undeniably Muslim childhood and the Press acts like someone is lynching him if this background is discussed. In any event, you’re comparing Obama to the wrong GOP Candidate. The proper comparasion is to Huckabee. Huckabee’s overt references to Christianity did bother me. It bothered a lot of people.. and the press gladly made sure that the public knew about it. In the same way, Obama’s cynical use of religious and spiritual themes is way over the top and is quite disturbing. Yet no serious look at it by the MSM.
That’s a false impression… Obama has Nation of Islam people working for his office! He goes to a racist church that HONORS Farrakhan. Are you that naive?
That’s what we expect from Democrat/Leftists… never address the issue, instead change the subject.
I hope someone reminds us that there really is no Leftist media bias:
A study of the three broadcast network evening news programs indicates John McCain’s media fortunes have taken a dramatic turn south since early January. The Center for Media and Public Affairs says the percentage of McCain coverage it deemed positive was 46 percent from mid-December through mid-February. But look at the contrast between his 97 percent positive number before the New Hampshire primary on January eighth — and just 30 percent positive since.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s overwhelmingly positive coverage has slipped a bit. Between mid-December and mid-February, Obama received 84 percent positive coverage. Hillary Clinton got 53 percent positive. But since Super Tuesday in early February, Obama’s good press number is 67 percent. Clinton has dropped slightly to 50.
Breaking down coverage by network — ABC and CBS gave Obama 90 percent positive coverage — NBC 73 percent. For Clinton — ABC had 68 percent positive, CBS 50 percent, and only 38 percent on NBC.
One other note — criticism of Bill Clinton overall was heavy, with the former president receiving just 24 percent positive coverage for his role in his wife’s campaign.
Obama has Nation of Islam people working for his office! He goes to a racist church that HONORS Farrakhan.
Links please.
… about the church being racist and NoI staff workers.
NOI Senate Staff:
http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+nation+of+islam+%22senate+staff%22
Church:
http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+church+farrakhan
I challenge you to make the case that McCain would be better on gay issues than Obama. You can’t.Â
I never said he was perfect. I wish I lived in a time when a viable presidential candidate could support gay marriage but I don’t.
"I challenge you to make the case that McCain would be better on gay issues than Obama. You can’t. "
McCain is opposed to regimes that hang gay people out of religious obligation. He also will not meet with them just for the sake of dragging the prestige of the United States through the mud.Â
What is more important than the security of the country? Nothing else matters if the deranged shiites ruling Iran get and use the weapons they’re seeking.
Nice sidestep, Vince.Â
So has McCain promised to do something to stop the execution of gays in arab countries? How are gays being treated in Iraq now?Â
I haven’t actually heard any speech from McCain about gay rights in the arab world. Did I miss something?
Houndentenor, I challenge you to make the case that Obama was better on gay issues than Kucinich. You can’t.
If you really cared about gay issues, you would be supporting Kucinich and bashing Obama as homophobic and antigay for not being as good as Kucinich.
Once again, it seems gay activists seem more eager to fit in with left-wing groups than to support the candidate who is best on gay issues.
And the corollary:
Once again, it seems gay conservative activists seem more eager to fit in with right-wing groups than to support the candidate who is best on gay issues.
You only had one candidate whose record on gay issues wasn’t abysmal. Giuliani.
In the world we live in, any one who chooses who to vote for soley or predominately on the basis of identity politics is an irresponsible fool. Why the hell would I form my vote on something as irrevelent to the Federal Executive as "gay issues"? Moron.
On the contrary, Houndentenor. Vince nailed it.
Just because *you* want to declare person X is sidestepping, does not make it so. Islamists hanging gays is a gay issue. (Or it would be, if Left gays had more rationality and self-esteem.) And just because McCain is more serious about American security, McCain is better than Obama on that issue. And what could be more important to gays, than life? or not being executed?
In other words: Obama would, as a matter of American foreign policy, appease – or "sidestep" the issue of – the most anti-gay people in the world today. People who put their hanging nooses where their mouths are.