The first part of your diary was some of your worst work.   Not at all impressed with the implications, the "these people" comment, the "royal highness" stuff.   The whole thing smells of sour grapes of the worst kind.  If someone from the Clinton campaign were to come out and make statements like the ones made by the Dukes of Hazzard guy and this "oh so funny and homespun" Mudcat Saunders, you would surely be the first to bash her without even thinking twice about it.  The same is true if a "campaign tour" she organized had as a fundraiser a known homophobe or racist amongst the performers.  You even write here as if the Obama/homophobe issue was a witchhunt orchestrated by Clinton-supporters, which is highly ridiculous.  Why not make your case INSIDE the diary in question instead of merely complaining about it "out here"?  

Give it a frigging break with the "these people" stuff, as if "we" are some sort of band of crazies, outcasts, worst-kind, because "we" don't agree with you on the best choice of candidate.    

That latter part of your post was ok, though.  

Unsavoury is relative.  This next election isn't about corporate America's behavior (that's for a future election), it's about something more basic- whether the country gives up its conservative lean and small remaining need for and trust in now obsolete Republicans.  Or not yet.

Obama simply took a while to realize he couldn't play both ends of the argument about gay rights.  The Culture War is real, it's not imaginary or cosmetic, and he's slow to pick up on the fact that it there is no armistice in it.  The conservative/bigoted/traditionalist side can not prevail in the long run, but it will hate and fight to the bitter end.  We'll have bipartisanship after the end of this second Civil War, not before.

What's missing from Edwards is a direct quoting of Howard Dean, i.e. how he would 'get the votes of guys in pickup trucks with gun racks and Confederate flags' (paraphrase).  That's the same vain hope that populism is still a winning position, or at least one that gets you a VP offer before it's exposed as an inviable position for the General.

Everyone know that Obama is not a homophobe and anyone indicating that, don't know his life.

Did he handle this correctly?  NO.  It is a political move and one that will have to be played out.  He is walking a line here, and this is wait and see.

But the Edwards statement, is bothersome to me.  I am not talking about anyone else, but me.  No way would Obama or Clinton have the nerve to ask an audience to "close their eyes and picture all three candidates", sorry they would not.  And I am not a Clinton supporter, but admire her for a woman who is running for POTUS.  The statement was wrong and it was suttle, period.

Shaun, as you know I ama stron Hillary supporter, but I don't think there's anything to this Edwards "issue". He has a long track record that speaks for itself. However, that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing, or that it is some sort of ginned up controversy.  Many AA's detected a hint of what might be some coded language in the comments, and it's not unreasonable to discuss that and ask some questions.  I'm black myself, and I felt the same thing, but my knowledge of Edwards is more than enough to make feel sure of his intentions.

As for Obama, it isn't an issue of anyone thinking he's a homphobe - everyone knows that isn't the case, and I doubt you'll find anyopne here who says otherwise.  However, Donnie McClurkin clearly is a homophobe and continues to say very nasty things about gays being abominable and morally bankrupt.  Obama shouldn't be giving this bigot a platform, and the criticism he's getting because of it is richly deserved. That doesn't make him a homophobe, but it does seem to indicate he is willing to pander to black conservatives.

that "former Duke of Hazard" is also a former Congressman - he played a character in a TV show, it's called Acting.  I hope you don't also think that Fred Thompson used to be the District Attorney in NYC.

What is Edwards asking us to close our eyes and picture in our minds about Barack Obama?

The he's a good lookin' guy and white voters in southern states won't like that?

He is not the "only one" that ability. Obama is the one who actually has a record of getting things done and bringing both sides of the aisle together and is gaining cross over support NOW from those voters. Not Edwards. If he was able to do all of these things he's claiming, why isn't he doing them now?

That's just great.  What's your definition of a "Tom"? Someone who isn't black enough to suit you? Obviously, that includes me, given your TR of my comment about supporting Clinton in another diary. I don't know where you got the idea that black people who don't think or behave a certain way are Tom's and sellout's, but that idea is outdated and ridiculous.

Romney, right?

You're dead right about that.  Why would one pick a Democrat who voted for the thing, for pity's sake?  It's a poisoned chalice we have no compelling reason to sip from.  I think this is an important point.

Agreed.  And Obama had to work to gain respect, here in Illinois.  Even among black folk, a name of Barack Obama, was like, who the hell is he?  Again, agreed on all points.

maybe Obama and Cheney are related on Obama's father side. Lynn was not specific on the family tree.  

Well said.

And coming from a mixed family, across the board, when you are black, you are black.

Of course, you recognize all members of your family.  I have hot messes on both sides.  Truly.  But in this country, black is black and that is how it is.

Of course it is important that people know who Barack Obama is.  A man of mixed heritage.  But when people look at Barack Obama, he is an African American man.  Period.

If you want to defend the Lieberman vote go right ahead. It is what it is and Hillary Clinton stated very clearly at the debate what she felt it was, and to her it wasn't a non-binding amendment. So whatever. If you are comfortable being a friend of Lieberman then go right ahead and cozy up to him. He isn't a real Democrat and most of us know it. But go ahead and defend Joey and defend Hillary Clinton for voting with him (again). Those of us within the party that object to the direction he, and Hillary Clinton are trying to move the party in are not wrong and we will fight it. And we won't hush up, or go away. Even if the absolute worst thing happens and she is elected President we will fight her and those of you that support her on this. Because we honestly believe it is the wrong direction for our party to be taking and the wrong message to be sending the rest of the world. Obama was right, we don't need Bush-Cheney Lite. And we sure as hell aren't going to put up with it.

As for your admonitions about my blogging existence... You don't know me. You really know very little about me. And even the things you think you know may all be an illusion anyway. But whatever the case may be, I am a loyal Democrat. I do not support the same candidate as you. And I honestly think she would at best be a placeholder for our Democratic Party.