Obama accepts $2,300 from homophobe Isiah Washington but "disagrees" with his use of anti-gay slur

How about returning the money or giving it to a pro-gay group? Surely Obama, with his $57 million can afford to shed $2,300 to make a noble point against anti-gay bigotry.


Obama 'disagrees with' actor's use of slur, but accepts donation

==Sen. Barack Obama's campaign for president received a $2,300 donation from actor Isaiah Washington, according to a report in today's Washington Post.

Washington was fired from his role on ABC's hit show "Grey's Anatomy" after using a homophobic slur. He later sought therapy for his homophobia and appeared in a GLAAD-sponsored ad denouncing hate speech. More recently, however, Washington cited racism as a factor in his firing, which somewhat negated his apology.

Jen Psaki, a spokesperson for Obama, issued a statement to the Blade regarding the campaign's acceptance of Washington's donation:

"Barack Obama strongly disagrees with the statements made by Isaiah Washington last year, but he joins members of the GLBT community in encouraging his efforts to seek counseling and his decision to tape a public service announcement on behalf of GLAAD."==

http://www.houstonvoice.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=13435

It would be a great symbolic stand against anti-gay bigotry. Obama certainly does not need the extra $2,300.

the media? The actor who said he called him by that term was not even involved in the incident between Washington and the other actor. He just wanted publicity and a larger role on the show. Too bad that Washington was deemed the scapegoat and had to redeem himself publicly for intentional backstabbing. Happens all the time in corporate america and throughout this country.
He apologized, get over it. Besides, if he gave the $$$ to Edwards, would you be complaining? He really needs it.

Get all upset over someone calling a fag a faggot.

Those people need to just get over it.

:sarcasm:

Isaiah called Patrick Demsey that and it had nothing to do with being gay..it was a hotheaded argument on the set between Isaiah and Patrick that got way outta hand.

attack threads against obama, over and over and over again.


see what I've been missing? nothing.

You know, one of the kindler, gentler ones ;)

Edwards and Obama supporters - Clinton is an evil corporatist

Clinton and Edwards supporters - Obama is an even bigger evil corporatist than Clinton

Obama and Clinton supporters - Edwards lives in a big house and gets expensive haircuts

:eyes:

my current opinion: whatever it takes to put a dem in the white house & end this descent into fascsim, fine. the ends justify the means.

Mr. Washington must be one of those "young and hip" Hollywood types that you're so quick to support.

I didn't know that young and hip in Hollywood means you're a homophobic asshole.

Obama and everyone else has received money from people they don't agree with. So what.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid47516.asp

== The donation came on May 4 and is the maximum amount an individual can give to a presidential candidate per election. Washington used a homophobic slur against Grey's costar T.R. Knight last year, then repeated the word at this year's Golden Globe Awards in January; he later apologized on Larry King Live, and his contract was not renewed on Grey's Anatomy.

Obama now faces the classic "Should he or shouldn’t he return the money?" question asked of candidates who receive funds from donors that some observers find objectionable. Kenneth Sherrill, professor of political science at Hunter College, says the Washington case is par for the course==

== All three Democratic front-runners have faced check-rejection dilemmas in the past and likely will again. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama’s campaign gave back $37,000 to Wilmette, Ill., businessman Tony Rezko, who is fighting public corruption and business fraud charges. ==

==The Obama campaign declined to comment about whether they would return Washington's donation, instead forwarding the following statement to The Advocate: "Barack Obama strongly disagrees with the statements made by Isaiah Washington last year, but he joins members of the GLBT community in encouraging efforts to seek counseling and his decision to tape a public service announcement on behalf of GLAAD."==

And this was news in the prominent Washington Blade as well. http://www.washblade.com/distribution/

Let's see how the GLBT reacts after they hear about this. Obviously, BO is not anti-gay but GLBT leaders may ask for the campaign to return the money.

I love how the Obama faithful have the NERVE to defend Washington.

Fucking queers should just shut up and take it I guess is the message here.

Even fundamental progressive principles are discarded if it conflicts with anything Obama is doing. Did you see the thread about him spending thrice as much as HRC on polling? Suddenly extensive reliance on polling is not a bad thing according to Obama Nation. :rofl:

of his supporters.

Thank god.

wearing boots when I come to the DU site because the shit you post is up to my neck already.

Gee, I wonder why they consider this newsworthy? :sarcasm:

the BS of the defending of a homophobe is up to my neck as well.

who has a politician's name in his username.

:eyes:

You are trying to make something out of nothing. Old news.

These are two prominent GLBT media organizations. But, hey, thanks for telling GLBT people how they will (read: should :eyes:) react, even though these two GLBT media organizations covered this story this week...

Those queens just get all upset over nothing. Why can't they just have brunch and not get all upset.

SHEESH!

:sarcasm:

Furthermore, Obama is not top on my list of preferred candidates so you can not accuse me of having a pro Obama bias.

This should be a non-issue and shame on anyone who thinks they can promote their candidate by slamming Obama on this issue.

Once again, we are being told what we should, or should not say regarding Obama. The fact is this is news in the GLBT community. This is a politics forum. We discuss political news. Obama is no sacred cow for whom only campaign press releases are worthy of being posted. :eyes:

Frankly, I'll defer to the Washington Blade and advocate.com over an individual on GLBT issues. They clearly think this is newsworthy. Maybe you should write them a letter demanding that they stop covering this, because you, and others, "know" this does not matter, although those who run media outlets for the GLBT community disagree. :crazy:

I speak only for myself. Why are you arguing with me about Obama support - did you read my post. You are just jumping all over the place?

As for your political sources (the Blade and the Advocate) it might interest you to know that most lesbians don't pay much attention to either. We tend to avoid publications with pics of naked men. You don't know squat about nothin'.

==I speak only for myself. Why are you arguing with me about Obama support - did you read my post.==

That is not the impression you gave. You gave your opinion and then thundered "shame on" anyone who dares to talk about this. What does this imply? That it is a total non-issue and hence should not be discussed. Who is any individual to say what is or is not important to a community? Frankly, if this was not a big deal we would not have seen such an emotional reaction from Obama supporters in this thread. If this is no big deal it will amount to nothing and be forgotten. Let's wait and see what happens regarding this instead of trying to silence discussion of this issue, that at minimum, is newsworthy among the GLBT community.

And the fact that this bit of information was published in the Advocate and the Blade does little to raise my outrage level. Both publications have been all over Washington's statements, so it isn't surprising that they would publish such a story.

If each and every candidate were to give money back to contributors who made stupid statements or engaged in questionable behavior, ALL of the candidates' coffers would go down a bit.

Obama has made it clear where he stands about GLBT rights and while he doesn't go as far as I would like, none of the viable candidates do. Elizabeth seems to get it, but she isn't running.

I thought you were through with these sorts of attacks, d_m_c. That didn't last long. :shrug:

All I said--and save this post--is that he should return the money. If any known bigot is found to be contributing to another candidate I will say the same thing. Don't believe me? Save the post and see if I am consistent on this.

==And the fact that this bit of information was published in the Advocate and the Blade does little to raise my outrage level.==

The articles simply reported the story. Neither criticized Obama. Obama supporters just began hyperventilating because Obama HQ did not rubber stamp the story.

It was you who said that "clearly there are some in the gay and lesbian community who think this matters" and you posted links to the two articles to back up your statement. Now you concede that the articles weren't critical of Obama. Which is it?

I'm not hyperventilating, and I doubt the Obama camp is, either. It's pretty clear to most objective observers that ALL candidates have accepted money from someone or another who has said or done something controversial.

Post what you want, d_m_c, but it's obvious from reading through this thread that you have returned to your old posting habits. Whatever makes you happy... :hi:

==It was you who said that "clearly there are some in the gay and lesbian community who think this matters" and you posted links to the two articles to back up your statement. Now you concede that the articles weren't critical of Obama.==

What matters? The story. Are the stories critical? No. If Michael Richards was found donating to HRC don't you think that would have made the news?

==It's pretty clear to most objective observers that ALL candidates have accepted money from someone or another who has said or done something controversial.==

Sure, but the difference is in this case we have a known bigot. Obviously, given the number of people who contribute some bigots will contribute to any candidate but Isiah is a known bigot. Obama could do some symbolic good but returning his money.

==Post what you want, d_m_c, but it's obvious from reading through this thread that you have returned to your old posting habits. ==

What exactly is the "attack" here? No one is claiming Obama is a homophobe. That would be absurd. Obama supporters are very tense at anything that is not rubber stamped by Obama HQ. I remember when I posted a thread denouncing HRC's racist joke. That was fine, right? Yet when I did the same regarding the D-Punjab memo it was a vicious smear. :crazy:

Some Obama supporters need to relax and not view everything not from Obama HQ or from his backers here as an attack on him. We are 6 months from the primaries. If Obama supporters have such thin skin right now I am afraid they will be in for a terrible time in December, January, and February--not the mention the fall if Obama makes it to the GE.

This is important information since it involves actions by a candidate for president that have a bearing on LGBT rights. What you do with the information is another thing. You might decide Washington made amends so it's a non-issue, or you might decide this shows a lapse of intergrity on Obama's part. There's no reason to shoot the messenger.

that's just peachy keen?

Imus donating to Obama? He would be hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread and should be considered to be White House press secretary in an Obama administration. :rofl:

Now that Richardson has passed him in NH, it's only a matter of time before the bottom drops out in Iowa.

I love how Obama supporters can tell others what they are thinking and should be doing. :crazy:

that there is a chance that out of all the money John Edwards has raised that someone probably donated money to him because they don't want a woman or a black man as president. Key thing, this person probably isn't a public figure and the John Edwards campaign or any campaign for that matter has no way short of having people fill out a questionare to determine if the donor is PC enough to accept their donation. We all know not a single candidate in any election would go to these means because the time and $$$ involved.

This is why this is news and why John Doe giving Edwards $100 because he does not want a black president or Jane Doe giving Obama $150 because she does not want a white president is not news.

Somewhere, somehow, someone needs to start distinguishing between WORDS and ACTIONS.

And we need to start distinguishing between WORDS and ACTIONS and understand that words only have as much power as you personally assign to them.

Oh so someone calling someone the n-word is just using a silly word?

Sorry but when some asshole drives down Santa Monica Blvd or Castro Street and screams "FAGGOT" I should just except it?

Nice!

You see, as far as I am concerned, the person screaming words out the car is making an idiot out of themselves and yes, the n word is just another silly word, just like Imus and his nappy comment.

Words only have as much power as YOU personally assign to them.

People are going to think what they are going to think no matter what words they attach to them. Someone who doesn't like gay people isn't going to start liking gay people b/c they no longer use the F word, same thing with black people, jewish people. In fact, all you do is entrench the belief by trying to tell people what they can and cannot say.

Imus gets fired for making an unfunny joke and those who dislike black people suddenly have a cause and a reason to continue hating.

However, Imus gets fired because his ratings keep sinking lower and lower because people don't want to listen to unfunny jokes... no cause is formed... no reason to continue hating... just a sad commedian who couldn't think of something actually funny to say.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll print out your post. I know just where to stick it.

Period.

I take it you are referring to being upset over the use of the word "faggot." So you would have no problem with "kike," "wop," "wetback," or "nigger" either. They're just words, after all, right?

:sarcasm:

Sometimes words DO matter. And I feel like I need to wash my hands just for typing them, but the point had to be made.

Bake

A lot of people here would disagree, including my whitebread ass!

Bake

Beat them? Kick them? Remove them from society for re-education?

No, I don't have a problem with anyone calling anyone any word they choose. And I firmly believe that attempting to make some idiotic issue out of it only continues to give power to the word and, then, to the people who use it to try and get a reaction.

oooooooooooooooo they used a naughty word.

People are actually SUFFERING and DYING from war, hunger, insufficient medical care and I am supposed to care that someone's feelings may get hurt because someone else used a naughty word?

If you are worrying about the words coming out of people's mouths, you got too much fricken time on your hands.

that you don't belong to a group that is an object of irrational hate. If I hear someone yell or mutter a slur at me, I know that there is a possibility violence may follow, either directly, or, with the knowledge that the slur may mean I live in an intolerant community, sometime down the road. Let me tell you that a young man in my community was taunted with homophobic slurs which he ignored---he just tried to continue having a good time with his friends. Then one of these men calling out the slurs approached him as he was leaving and smashed him so hard in the face, he fell backwards onto concrete. He was brain dead and had life support removed a few days later. Words are the expression of attitudes. Racist, homophobic, misogynistis, etc. attitudes and beliefs always have the potential of being expressed through violence. Ultimately it isn't the "silly words" that worry people, but the knowledge of what the hatred behind the words can do.

Words DO mean something.

Bake

Its how you deal with it.

Attacking people for use of words, reinforces their hatred (they being the people who hate, not the individual themselves).

First, I am a member of a group that is the subject or irrational hate and I don't care when people use the slurs. I don't care if people comment on my appearance, size, ethnicity or anything.

You can't control thoughts by trying to control words, in fact, you exaccerbate it. When you attack someone for using a word, you just increase the hatred in those who actually have the real tendency towards violence.

When someone is fired for using the word "faggot", those who hate gay people become MORE ANGRY with gay people for getting someone fired for doing nothing more than using a word. Do you really believe Washington was going to punch someone because of their sexual orientation?

Millions and millions of people use "slurs" most don't have actual violent intent. Most are just bad jokes, expressions of frustration, or attempts to annoy. Some of those people do mean harm, but they mean harm with or without the words, just as in the example you gave. Trying to change the criminals language would not change the behavior. He hated because he hated, not because of a word in the language. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about in distinguishing words vs actions.

PC is an experiment that FAILED MISERABLY, just like supply side economics. For 20 years people have tried to control thought by controlling language and it has done absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

The war on drugs didn't change drug use.

The war on words isn't going to change thought, no matter how much you want it to.


People are so damn hypocritical it drives me nuts. We seem to understand that we are not going to change perception of us in the middle east by attacking countries and using heavy handed tactics to force them to think differently about us, but we think we can change the way people think about gay people, fat people, jewish people or black people by punishing people for using naughty words.

Because in the end, it is going to work the same way... "Look what THEY are doing to THAT PERSON I CAN RELATE TO"

When we learn to distinguish between words and actions, we will be on our way to dealing with hatred.

But if we all just stop using the ugly names, and try treating people with more respect, we CAN change the next generation. I grew up in the South and have heard the "N" word most all of my life. I don't use it. My son now goes absolutely ballistic if he hears someone using it. That's how we change things. It's slow, but we have to start somewhere.

I contend that ugly words, freely used, condition people to think a certain way of other groups of people. "Why, if it's OK to call them n*****s, they must BE less than human, or at least inferior to US." Something has to change the thought patterns that lead to this kind of conditioning. Language is one way to do that.

The flip side of that coin is also true: haters use language intentionally to spread their hate. When Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews, he started with language that set them apart from everyone else; they became a scapegoat as a group. From there it was a short step to walling them off in the ghettos, and finally to shipping them off to Auschwitz.

Bake

We have been doing this for 3 generations now and we have proven the WORDS mean nothing.

Does your kid go "ballistic" when he hears Chris Rock or Aaron McGruder use the words? No? Why not? Isn't the word the bad thing? No, its not, the WORD, in and of itself, is harmless. Until we accept that as reality, we will get no where.

"Why, if it's OK to call them n*****s, they must BE less than human, or at least inferior to US."

Are you seriously contending that you think that belief comes from the WORD?? you can't be serious! Your child's correct behavior has nothing to do with words, but with INTENT. You have taught him that all people are equal and to use any description in a degrading manner is wrong. In short, it is not the WORD, but the INTENTION and the ACTION behind the word that matters.



Its an interesting 1984 mentality you have there... change the language and you change the way people think. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. People fight against that, just as a large part of the country is fighting against bush's attempts to change the lexicon. It works on some people, but a large % of the population will resist any method of changing their thoughts by trying to control their use of language.

The way you change people's thoughts is through education, NOT control. We understand this when it comes to dealing with the middle east and even when language is being used against things we believe in (such as "war on terror"), but we forget when it comes to things we want (such as an end to bigotry). I know everytime I hear the words, "war on terror" I get more entrenched AGAINST it because I believe that someone is trying to control my thoughts through language, by trying to make me think there is some country called "terrorvania" out there that is coming to get me.

Everytime someone freaks out over language alone, you set the movement back a little further. Now, bigots see Imus as a martyr, instead of just some sad aging talk show host who can't tell a funny joke.

Mel Gibson's movie shot to #1 after his anti-jewish tirade. Why? Because everyone was clammering for a movie in ancient mayan? No, because those who felt he was being wrongfully attacked for being an idiot came out to support him. Instead of Gibson being a drunken idiotic actor, he became someone who was being wrongfully attacked and needed support.

The only harm from Gibson's tirade, was done by the people who attacked him for it. It ended up mitigating the fact that he was stinking drunk and driving a car (the actual crime) and made the story all about whether he should be punished for his WORDS.

So what's your beef?

What do HRC and Faux have to do with this thread?

"Hillary accepts $2 million + from Rupert Murdoch"

Seriously, do you buy into the theory that the bigger the lie the more readily it will be accepted?

It's going to be a short ride on this fake outrage roller coaster.

on stuff that isn't terribly earth-shattering and usually amounts to material suitable for mud-slinging.

I'm sure if enough people complain, he'll give it back.

You don't deserve to use that man's name.

Yes, how dare GLBT media outlets dare to report on a prominent presidential candidate receiving money from a homophobe. :sarcasm:

Are you saying Obama is a homophobe? If not, what is your point?

I have said in this thread that BO is not a bigot. No one believes or is saying that.

==If not, what is your point?==

This is a politics discussion forum. Obama is a politician running for president. Therefore, people post threads about him when he is the news. Nothing revolutionary...Besides, it isn't my point. The fact is this is a newsworthy thing in the GLBT community. Gee, I wonder why the GLBT community thinks this is newsworthy. :sarcasm: Let's wait and see how the GLBT community reacts to this--instead of telling them what they "should" think and do. It just made the news yesterday.

YOu are not getting anyone to change their minds. You are trying to use What Washington did is not more than pandering. It will not help Edwards or hurt Obama. Everyone see through your Bull Shit

So when it comes to Sen Obama ... in your eyes ... it's ok that he takes money from a homophobic asshole? Right??

If you have a problem taking money you need to look at all candidates. Obama does not judge people. I have no problem with him. Now if you want to judge people open up all books and see who is actually giving to all campaigns.

we do not agree with.

Names?

==Now if you want to judge people open up all books and see who is actually giving to all campaigns.==

That is what is happening. How do you think the media found out about Washington giving to BO? So far, no known bigot has given to the other candidates. If one is found it will surely make the news--and I hope the candidate returns that money. Save this post. If Edwards is found to have received money from a bigot I will call on him to return the money too.

you are trying to use against Obama. Obama has nothing to do with what Isiah said. Therefore, it is bullshit. Bring me something Obama said or shut up.

Get a grip.

I see that you're so quick to defend a homophobe that you'll spin this to fit your defence of your support of Obama.

For the record ... I LOVE Obama. I'm pissed about this.

If HRC did this. I'd rip down my sign in my window and my bumperstick on my car.

BANK ON IT!!!


You don't have a problem with homophobes .... that's your problem.

And if you, or the Blade or any other person or entity dares to mention this they must shut up and be re-educated with the correct thinking. :crazy:

WE discuss political items and political news. This was in the news. Nothing revolutionary here. :crazy:

anything.

You are trying to attack Obama when he has not done anything. I could see you doing it if he did, but he did not. That is like sending someone to jail to serve time for someone else.

...executives? ;)

To justify this crap. I'm not "from the GLBT community" but the article certainly raises questions in my mind. I'm not naive enough to think that candidates don't receive or accept contributions from people with questionable positions, but when it comes to light, the candidate GENERALLY does something about it. The Obamaniacs here are not only justifying keeping the money, they're bending over backwards (triple) to do so, and lashing out at anybody who disagrees. "Show me where Isiah Washington is running for anything"??? SOMEBODY'S got some logic problems, and it ain't you and me, ronny!!

I sense that the "new kind of politics" is pretty much the same as the "old" kind.

Bake

A little passive perhaps, I'll admit. If I've got time to write "outrage" letters, there are plenty of other things to be outraged about.

Bake

I don't care who our nominee is he or she will get support, some financial some grassroots, from homophobic preachers most of whom will be African American. We aren't going to disavow that support so it would be hypocritical to make Obama return this donation. I am by no means justifying Washington's behavior, but like it or not, there are homophobes who will vote for a Democratic ticket and who will give money to Democratic candidates despite the fact those candidates aren't themselves homophobes. As long as the candidate continues to favor gay right's positions I don't care if he gets money from homophobes.

...I don't think he should turn over the money. If Washington were Fred Phelps or had a history of repeated homophobic actions, then I would say dump the money.

Given than Washington friggin' apologized, why are we even discussing this?

Don't bother, I know exactly why. Walmart was running a blue light special on cheap shots.

...promote another candidate? That is ludicrous. Yeah, people are going to shift in droves to another candidate because one bigot donated to a guy who no one thinks is a homophobe. Paranoia will destroy ya... ;)

person is giving them money. This is dumb.

David Vitter apologized, sort of.

What's your point? Washington's a bigot, plain and simple. I don't give a sh*t how many times he apologizes.

Bake

You know if politicians only accepted money from people they agree with on 100% of the issues they would not raise any damn money. I am sure every candidate running has accepted money from someone who is a racist, homophobes, bigot, fundamentalist, nra supporter etc. You can't expect candidates to do a background check on every donor,nor should they be responsible for their donors actions.

:popcorn:

You cannot police everyone. Besides, the guy supports Obama, so what.

Because NBC just hired Isiah Washington.

This is not anything revolutionary. It would be a great gesture against bigotry if Obama did what HRC, Jim Moran (D-VA), and even George W. Bush have done in the past. Obama himself returned the Rezko money, which was much greater than the Isiah Washington money.

In 2000 he was only a known bigot, not a criminal. So we know HRC at least would return money from a known bigot.