Hillary Clinton on LGBT Teens- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/29/08 at 11:54pm

he didn't even know who the guy was until the controversy started...Obama's campaign management accidentally put an ex-gay gospel singer he didn't know anything about

That's simply not true. Are you spinning? Or is someone spinning you?

Updated On: 1/29/08 at 11:54 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:01am

You know, Obama and Clinton both have their pros and minuses.

I really have a hard time deciding between them.

I've been leaning more towards Clinton in the past week, but now I'm swaying toward Obama. But I really just hope with every fiber of my being that the Democratic nominee gets elected.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:07am

Yeah, I really believe that Obama personally went out of his way to enlist an ex-gay gospel singer for the specific purpose of making gays the villain. This was a staff failure, nothing more.

The part that's actually annoying is why he didn't drop McClurkin when he found out--that was the bold move he didn't take. But it was a misstep in an otherwise consistently outspokenly pro-gay career (without preaching to the choir--a candidate who's willing to tell traditionally anti gay audiences they're wrong).

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:20am

Obama fans refuse to believe that the man made a calculatedly political decision to throw his LGBT supporters under the bus briefly in order to woo a black Christian audience that dwarfs the number of gays and lesbians who would be offended.

I'll vote for him if he;s the nominee, but I will always remember how he behaved.

I have to assume that when it comes to the Inaugural, Obama would invite Donnie McClurkin over Maya Angelou, who was the first person to speak of lesbians and gays at a presidential inauguration when she performed "On the Pulse of Morning" at the first Clinton inaugural.

Those were incredible times, Ronin. Our friends were dying, but the people in charge were going to change things.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:30am

I have a hard time buying that. If that was really his intention, why would he add a gay minister to the campaign tour? When he hand selected McClurkin to draw the homophobic southern black ticket, do you think he was simply hoping nobody gay would notice? Note that this belief is inconsistent with Obama's political methodology, voting record, public statements, etc... as I have said.

Do you think he was simply doing it to see what would happen?

The notion that Obama would not invite talk of gays and lesbians in his inaugural is ludicrous. He's talking about them now, left and right. Don't see why he'd stop after he's been elected.

Noting that the much vaunted Hillary Clinton is the same person who said this about AIDs.

“This is a multiple-dimension problem. But if we don’t begin to take it seriously and address it the way we did back in the ’90s when it was primarily a gay men’s disease, we will never get the services and the public education that we need.”

Reeks of just another case of the big politician saving all those pitiful suffering protesters who couldn't help themselves, or make their cases heard. The gay men's disease. Right.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 9:11am

"I have a hard time buying that. If that was really his intention, why would he add a gay minister to the campaign tour? When he hand selected McClurkin to draw the homophobic southern black ticket, do you think he was simply hoping nobody gay would notice? Note that this belief is inconsistent with Obama's political methodology, voting record, public statements, etc... as I have said."

I was disappointed in the entire way Obama handled this situation. Even if one accepts Obama's claim that when McKlurkin was asked to perform his views weren't known (something I don't believe)then one has to question what happened afterwards. The only statements from the Obama campaign when the contrerversy first hit was that Mr. McKlurkin would still perform. After the outrage grew he added a gay minister to open the program. He hired a White minister, who was gay, to open with a prayer, before most of the audience had even arrived. No mention was made of the ministers sexuality. What followed was Mr. McKlurkin acted as akind of MC and spouted homophobic comments throughout.
Obama , in trying to get the evangelical black vote in South Carolina basically told his gay and lesbian supporters that he was trying to reach out to everyone.
Would he feel the same way if Hillary asked a bigotted singer to perform in a concert for her and that performer used the concert to spout racist comments? Somehow I think Hillary would be crucified for that. Why is Obama held to different standard?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 10:36am

Hillary wouldn't do it.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 10:46am

"I have to assume that when it comes to the Inaugural, Obama would invite Donnie McClurkin over Maya Angelou,"

Do you ACTUALLY believe that sentence? Really and truly?

God LORD, Bill Clinton not only threw the gays over the bus, he threw off the driver, put the thing in reverse and ran over us a couple of times just to make sure he finished the job.

DADT and DOMA are two of the most ridiculous, awful, hateful things done to us in the last decade and a half. And you're all upset over Obama having McClurkin at an event he wasn't even at and at which McClurkin didn't spout anti-gay rhetoric?

Yes...I know. Hillary is not Bill. I get it. But REALLY? THIS is what you hold onto when there was real legislative violence done to us under the Clinton administration?

I'm at a loss.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 10:53am

"'I have to assume that when it comes to the Inaugural, Obama would invite Donnie McClurkin over Maya Angelou.' Do you ACTUALLY believe that sentence? Really and truly?"

Absolutely. Positively. Yes, I do. And Obama's betrayal of us for the votes of bigots--along with Obama's support for the evils of the credit-card industry--are the two reasons why I am still holding out for Al Gore.

I will support whoever is nominated, but I do not--FOR ONE GAY MINUTE--believe that Obama's support for the LGBT community is sincere.

I find him just as phony as any other politician--and just as scary.

I think the Donnie McClurkins of the world would be welcomed under his umbrella--and we would be asked, once again, to turn the other cheek.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 10:53am

DOMA and DADT were compromises to prevent harsher legislation, if not Constitutional Amendments. I don't dismiss that Bill could have taken a much stronger stand for us. I don't dismiss that both Obama and Hillary have made mistakes or have chosen to talk the (necessary?) talk to get elected at the present time.

But, ultimately, Obama, Clinton, or Edwards would be good for the LGBT community. They would certainly be better than any of the GOP candidates.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:13am

I don't necessarily have the rosy view of those pieces of legislation as you do, jrb, but I understand where you're coming from.

But I do completely agree on your views of all the Democratic candidates. I wasn't thrilled about the whole McClurkin thing...but I certainly didn't feel it an out-and-out betrayal. Especially, as time moves past it, I think it's really rather a minor blip.

I get getting passionate about the candidates. I haven't chosen one to support yet because I think they all represent my views on what America can be spectacularly. And, right now, it's coming down to the Question Part of the Miss America Pageant factor, for me. It's about style. Which is odd...and thrilling.

I mean...I get being pissed off about the McClurkin thing. What I don't get is the vitriol and the assumption that Maya Angelou (???) while be asked to sleep in the House Nergro quarters.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 11:13am

PJ--why does any criticism of Hillary automatically result in a criticism of Obama? Can't she be judged as an individual candidate without a "Well, Obama does____"?

Her faults and flaws are her own, just as Obama's are.

And robbiej--Hillary is Bill--that's what she's running on--their collective experience, so in a very real way of her own making, she is Bill.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:25pm

Because the Clintons routinely get dinged for things other candidates (and presidents) get passes on.

The Clintons get blamed for DOMA and DADT when it was clear to anyone watching then that those two pieces of legislation were imposed on Bill Clinton by a Republican Congress outraged that his administration was planning on being gay-friendly.

Here's what went down: Someone asked Clinton early on "Do you think gays should serve in the military"? He answered, "Of course they should." The media ran around saying "But what about the showers? What about the foxholes?" And the Republicans yelled, "GOTCHA!" So Congress proposed two pieces of legislation even worse than these.

Do you honestly think that if Obama were put in the same corner he would stand up for our rights?

Really? REALLY?

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:32pm

Again with the What Would Obama Do? Hillary's campaign isn't about what she does in comparison to what he does, is it? I thought it was about change and being ready on the first day and whatever else the polls say.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:33pm

I believe he would at the very least allow progress to happen.

I'm not sure I believe Hillary or Edwards would do more. I tend to think she would.

And from recent comments, I get the impression that Gore would do more.

At this point, I, too, hope that it's a Dem behind that desk whoever of these 2 - 4 people it is.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:40pm

lildogs--I am not Hillary's campaign. I am me. And I am asking you: Do you honestly think Obama would do more?

I do not. Do you?

That is why I am holding out for Gore.

But please stop insulting me and saying that my words are not mine. They are mine.

Updated On: 1/30/08 at 12:40 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:40pm

I honestly don't think there's any real difference among them on this issue.

But Hillary tries to take on EVERY issue and do something about it and put programs in place--not every problem can be solved by federal government intervention (gasp!) and I think that the problems of LGBT teens lies in local communities--what could she feasibly do as Prez anyway?

The best way to encourage acceptance is visibility--I think that lies in the hands of the entertainment industry who can choose to air prorams/films/websites that offer depictions of gay people outside of the maury/jerry world.

And coming out--lgbt kids feel like they are the only ones and when they live in places without a gay community, they have nobody.

Knowing even one gay person can sometimes mean the difference between life and death. Just make sure that one person isn't Jeffrey Dahmer.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:50pm

I honestly don't get how McClurkin being invited to speak at a rally that Obama wasn't even at is considered a betrayal and Clinton's signing of DADT and DOMA is a 'ding' created by someone else. I can see feeling betrayed by both. But the anger seems a little lopsided and, well, irrational.

DADT at least SEEMED to be a good intention. DOMA is shameful.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:53pm

That was not my question. But, yes, I think what a president chooses to talk about and who the president chooses to include make HUGE differences in the culture. HUGE.

My question was, "Do you honestly think that if Obama were put in the same corner [forced by a Republican Congress to sign DADT and DOMA] he would stand up for our rights?"

That was the question.

Based on his behavior before and during the Donnie McClurkin episode, I do not.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 12:56pm

Probably not, but as you would say, neither did Hillary. So they're equal.

And hon, that's not anything close to an insult to you--I have no idea where you got that.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 1:01pm

"Do you honestly think that if Obama were put in the same corner [forced by a Republican Congress to sign DADT and DOMA] he would stand up for our rights?"

Who the hell knows? Really. I certainly cannot say that a man who goes into black churches and addresses the homophobia endemic to such communities will vote that way...even with the McClurkin incident.

The comparison you have going is kind of false. You are comparing the actual legislative record of Bill Clinton and some theoretical legislative record of Obama...in ENTIRELY different times.

I think Obama, Clinton (Hill), Edwards and the rest of the Democratic field all would have been strong on GLBT (oops...I forgot...you hate the T's now) issues. They've each had strong rhetoric, they each showed well (well, not Richardson) at the Logo/HRC debate and they each seem to be capable leaders.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 1:08pm

Poor Richardson. I hear he's the best of all the candidates aside from maybe Kucinich on gay issues and he botched that debate badly.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 1:10pm

That was a tough one to watch, wasn't it. But yes...apparently his record on GLBT issues is very strong.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 2:02pm

Speaking of the T--what are the thoughts here on including them in the LGBT? I have to admit, I'm not sure what I think...

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/30/08 at 2:10pm

Lildogs, that's a good question. I don't really know what I think about it, either. I think there's a case to be made that the T intersects with the LG and B, but I don't know that's necessarily the case, except that we're all looking for "tolerance."

I just want to know when the L jumped in front of the G. I remember when I used to see GLBT everywhere and then suddenly the L was in front.