I don't understand why some Obama supporters are so

defensive about the criticism Obama continues to receive over McClurkin.

Listen, I don't think it's fair that Sen. Obama has put his supporters in this position of taking the heat all because he swept his responsibility under the rug.

He allowed this homophobe to perform, despite numerous warnings about McLurkin's character.

Obama made the call, so he he gets to pay the consequences -- not the least of which are losing potential voters in a very tight race where every vote is critical.

All of these threads trying to deflect this issue.

In my view, it's getting to the point where the LGBT community is being used as a wedge issue to sway votes.

We're used to being used . . . the only difference is we're, used to it coming from the Republicans, not Democrats.

Obama did what he did. It is what it is.

Stop defending him. If he cared, he'd speak about his himself.

Who would that be?

Edit: Since the year isn't given in this excerpt, it is 2005 - I don't want the January date to confuse anyone (even though it would be tomorrow anyway....)


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0509,lombardi1,61604,6.html/full

-snip-

It came in a January 19 speech in Boston that made headlines there, with Clinton appearing in a Globe photograph alongside the host, Reverend Eugene Rivers III, one of the state's most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage.

-snip-

The affair's host was Reverend Eugene Rivers III, the spiritual leader of the Pentecostal Azusa Christian Community and a prominent black minister willing to do business with the Bush White House. On January 25, he was among a coterie of clergy who met with President Bush in Washington. His Ten Point foundation has benefited from federal funding thanks to the administration's faith-based program. And Rivers has appeared in documents issued by the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives pushing one of its most controversial elements—that faith-based agencies be allowed to ignore state and local anti-discrimination laws but still receive federal money.

And then there's his outspoken stance against same-sex marriage. Last year, in the battle for civil-marriage rights for gay couples in Massachusetts, Rivers aligned himself with the most extreme opponents. He showed up at forums hosted by the anti-gay Family Research Council. He lent his celebrity to a radio ad paid for by Your Catholic Voice that declared: "Same-sex unions are really about 'special rights' for a special interest group."

Just a week before he shared the spotlight with Senator Clinton in Boston, he sounded a similar theme at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, arguing in a January 11 address that the words "civil rights" have been co-opted by those who support full equality for gay couples. Then Rivers revealed his true conservative colors:

"Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to marry are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements of family life and the proverbial white picket fence," he told the crowd. "From their positions of socioeconomic privilege, they insist that their desires must be viewed as rights instead of preferences."

Edwards are opposed to same sex marriage.

So while I don't like it, it's consistent with her stance.

But more importantly, this was not a campaign fundraiser for President.

And McClurkin is more dangerous than a preacher who is opposed to same sex marriage because McClurkin sends the message that gay people are evil and that it's a chosen lifestyle, thus convincing countless voters there's no reason to support gay rights if it's a fake lifestyle.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Edwards talked about it from his personal history, and truthfully talked about his struggle.

He THEN SAID he would do NOTHING to stand in the way of gay marriage.

BIG difference.

He has admitted being "uncomfortable" with gay marriage, but we also know that Cate and Elizabeth are in favor of equality, so they can work on him.

Bill Clinton signed the Indefensible Marriage Act, so I don't expect him to change Hillary's mind in a positive direction.

I honestly have no idea what Michelle Obama's views are on the subject.

Of course, Dennis Kucinich remains committed to full equality, if you want to ignore the media whores and go for the candidate who actually will represent ALL Americans.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You Kucitizens are sooooo funny! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Here, before you retort with a mean-spirited reply, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVN4DEwV3I

But we're happy to make an exception in your case.

Hope you appreciate it #50

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4108587

Nor do they like the implications of that truth. They expected no reprecussions from the events. They expected gay people to be quiet about it. He did what he did, and they need to own it or call their candidate on it.
Obama could end the whole thing quickly, and he should. If he wants to win.

Indefensible.

- Dave

defensive about the criticism Bonds continues to receive over 'roids.