And he said it in San Francisco.

For diarists rightly concerned about sexist dog whistles, one would think that Hillary's supporters would be equally as concerned about homophobic ones, right?  Wrong.

Like their candidate, who also considers the fact that Barack dared speak to and raise money from San Francisco as relevant as what he said, Hillary's supporters, too, cannot seem to mention one without the other.

One diarist, for example, has made sure to mention it in every diary on the subject.  The first two were in quotes, which I suppose is defensible, but when those quotes weren't available, well - the diarist supplied, and then supplied again:

So this all started at a $1,000 per ticket fundraiser at some guy's home?  No press - private home - 300 to 400 of his rich supporters in San Francisco.  No wonder Obama felt comfortable letting it all hang out.

Indeed.  Who knows what else he might have felt comfortable doing?

You know, after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," after the "Defense of Marriage Act," and after the use of similar anti-gay tactics by the Republican Party, you would think that Democratic candidates and their supporters would have learned that this sort of anti-gay rhetoric is destructive - if not, you know, to me, you, and millions upon millions of Americans, then at least to their own electoral fortunes.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton and her supporters have not.  Indeed, perhaps the lesson they took from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act" is that one can adopt and promote anti-gay rhetoric and policy - and win.  It did work for Bill, after all.

And thus the constant reminder that Barack Obama dared speak to . . . San Francisco.

Thank God for Hillary Clinton - she'll never put those nasty . . . San Francisco people above the good, decent, God-fearing, real, regular people of Pennsylvania.

Ah, well.  If Clinton previals, at least her homophobia will be better coded than it was in the 90s.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Troll, Troll Diary (all tags)

Comments

64 Comments

I've received at least five "1" ratings

For daring to ask why it's relevant that he spoke in San Francisco.  Apparently, it's easier to drop a "1" than defend the rhetoric.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:05PM | 0 recs
Scraping for signs of imaginary dog whistles

San Francisco is almost the entire stretch of the nation away from Pennsylvania, and he was speaking at a party of millionaires about the poor bitter country folk .  It is relevant to anyone who is not paranoid and scraping to pick up signs of dog whistles out of his imagination, because he had no business trying to explain something he doesn't understand to a group of people who don't understand it either.  Sheesh.

by Scotch 2008-04-14 08:12PM | 0 recs
right

because out of the two of them, its Obama that does not have a small donor base and needs to rely on big donors. Oh wait, that Hillary.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
Paranoid! Imagination!

Second and third bingo of the thread, I think.  You're a font of something, Scotch.

Otherwise, I'm confused: why doesn't Obama understand small town America?  Does Hillary understand it better?  How so?

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:19PM | 0 recs
McClurkin
involvement in the Obama campaign was a dog whistle.

The only reason mention San Fransisco is to point out the 'elitism', which is a bit silly, but it is probably the point...

Which brings me back to your diary- what is the point again?
by linc 2008-04-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
So

When Republicans mention San Francisco, they mean elitism?  Is San Francisco the most elitist city in the world?  Is that's what's unique about it?

Because I thought for sure it was better known for its . . . universal health care system.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:23PM | 0 recs
Back in the 1980s

Back in the 80s, yes, "San Francisco" was codename for gay, a la Jean Kirkpatrick's "San Francisco Democrats".

Today - as with the recent "San Francisco Values" it's about liberal intellectuals who supposedly hate America.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-14 09:22PM | 0 recs
Sure it does.

It changed to the latter as soon as Hillary Clinton decided to use it.  Everyone got the memo, right?  Even in small-town Pennsylvania.

Does it make you itch to excuse that sort of homophobic dog whistle, Dave, or does it blend with in with the rest as a general sense of unease?

by Drew 2008-04-14 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure it does.

No. "San Francisco Values" were attacks Republicans made against democrats in 2006 in relection of the fact that Nancy Pelosi was poised to become Speaker.  It has to do with the totality of their portayals of the liberal intelligentsia - anti-military, tax-and-spend, etc.  The gay thing is so 80s.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-14 09:30PM | 0 recs
It's disappointing, really.

How much Hillary's supporters will excuse.  You know, if you and your allies were to say, "Hey, Hillary?  Enough with attacking San Francisco.  We know what you're doing, and we don't approve," she'd stop.  Shame works.

But you can't even be bothered to do that.  Because electing Hillary is more important than the fundamental dignity of people who aren't Hillary.

I know that can be said of Obama supporters, too, in more than a few cases, but aren't you supposed to be better?  Or at least less homophobic?

Guess not.

Go ahead.  Tell me again that it's "so 80s."  In a way, it is - same homophobia, different elementary school.

by Drew 2008-04-14 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: It's disappointing, really.

Because nothing in her comments are homophobic in any way.  Why would I ask her to stop homophobic attacks on San Francisco when she's not doing it?

Obama's the one who came into this city, met with donors in private at the Getty mansion and chose to demean the values of middle class America.  Which is a problem because I see that sort of thing ALL THE TIME here.  And I hate the fact that Obama had to come here and remind everyone of that.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-14 09:49PM | 0 recs
I'm sure Clinton thought nothing in

Goldwater's comments were racist, either.  When she supported him, I'm sure it was impossible for her to believe that his appeals to states' rights were code for racism.

I'm sure she asked, "Why would I ask him to stop racist attacks when he's not doing it?"

Here, something similar is true.  She didn't see them, and you don't see them.  Maybe time will change that.  Or maybe you'll continue to believe that every other politician, when they derisively refer to San Francisco as Hillary has, does not mean what Hillary does.

by Drew 2008-04-14 10:04PM | 0 recs
You are mistaken.

The conservatives use it as a code for their anti-gay, theocratic, social conservative base.  Still works on that group too.

Hillary was using it to rile up the bible thumpers.  I've said it before but it bears repeating, she should fire whoever is giving her advice about how to run her campaign.  They aren't making her look tough enough to beat McCain, they're making her indistinguishable from McCain.

I wish she would look back at the beginning of the primary and see how much popularity she had before the race really started.  And now after so much campaigning, so much money spent, so many speeches, she hasn't improved her position at all.

The only time she went up in polls was after the debates when she just talked policy and was cordial to her opponent(s).  Every time she went on the attack it hurt her.  Yet someone keeps telling her to go on the attack.  Why?

Sorry, guess I ranted myself off topic.

by GFORD 2008-04-14 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: McClurkin

I think the point is that Hillary is insulting San Francisco, and by doing so lowering her chances of wining the state if she became the nom. She has a pattern of insulting states in the past by saying they didn't matter.

by venician 2008-04-15 06:39AM | 0 recs
Code Word San Francisco

It's because San Francisco is the city most hated by right wing troglodytes.

It was also prominently and often mentioned in this weekend's 'bitter story' by Pat Buchanan, Bill Bennett, and every d-bag on Fox news.

by toyomama 2008-04-14 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Code Word San Francisco

We have a winner.

It is part of the right wing attack on any Democrat. San Fransisco is code for gay, just like the term "boy" is code for black guy.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-04-14 09:09PM | 0 recs
And "troll" and "troll diary"

From the tags.  I'm so honored.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
Are you serious?

The fund-raiser was held in San Francisco.  Hillary Clinton is not homophobic.

by psychodrew 2008-04-14 08:53PM | 0 recs
Very.

If John McCain or any other Republican had attacked San Francisco in the same way that Hillary and her supporters have, their anti-gay bigotry would have been obvious.

But when Clinton does the same, you defend it?  Do you honestly believe that the candidate who campaigned for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," who campaigned for the "Defense of Marriage Act" - do you honestly believe that she's above playing to anti-gay sentiment for votes?

Because she's not.  She's doing it now.  And her supporters, the very supporters who rightfully criticized Obama for his association with McClurkin, even in this thread, not only ignore it, but defend it.

by Drew 2008-04-14 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Very.

What proof do you have that Hillary ever campaigned for DADT? While not ideal, it was a great improvement for gay service people. I wish straight people would learn a bit about gay and lesbian issues before telling us what our interests are.

by DaleA 2008-04-14 09:25PM | 0 recs
Yeah...

...the constant harping about San Francisco has been disconcerting. I'm definitely hearing a dogwhistle.

by MBNYC 2008-04-14 08:06PM | 0 recs
Maybe I'm being too sensitive

That's certainly been the accusation in the previous thread.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:07PM | 0 recs
I don't think so.

One thing I remember from Kerry Ohio in 2004 were the R mailers about "San Francisco values" hint hint wink wink. It's like saying something about West Hollywood or the West Village.

Seen it all before, been there, done that, got the tattoo.

by MBNYC 2008-04-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.
Oh for fucking sake.  How ridiculous can you get.
You have quite the imagination.
by Scotch 2008-04-14 08:07PM | 0 recs
It's like Christmas!

Now I'm imagining things!

Really, I'm rather excited to see how many Clinton supporters will respond with exactly the same defenses that they've heard from those fools who believe that Clinton hasn't been the victim of sexism in this campaign.

Perhaps it will become an antidote to the self-righteousness I've seen.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
No way

Sen. Clinton is not a homophobe.  She's certainly grasping, but I don't believe for a minute she has a bias against gay folk.

by bjones 2008-04-14 08:09PM | 0 recs
So she's not a homophobe.

But then, was George Wallace a racist, or did he merely exploit racism until it became politically unpopular - whereupon he rejected it?

In practice, it doesn't matter whether Hillary has any personal bias against gays.  It's her public bias that concerns me.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:14PM | 0 recs
San Francisco, San Francisco,

San Francisco. I'm gay and have no problem with people mentioning the city by name.

So, no dog whistle here.

Sorry, try again. Maybe you can find something Hillary has said in the past two days to cry racism over.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
Nor do I.

But I like it when they praise the city for its many virtues.

Not when they point to it with derision.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:24PM | 0 recs
Where is anyone pointing to it

with derision? I totally missed where Hillary did that. You may see it has many virtues but when I think of SF I don't think of those virtues you speak of and frankly I don't think of it being that gay central anymore.

I know people there who had to move away after all the couples and rich folk moved in and drove up the rent and prices of housing.

When I think of SF I think of the bridge and I think about the discrimination I hear gay people of color face in areas like the castro. I think of the pretty racist comments I've read on the gay forums of craigslist where they decry the rail system that has made the castro accessible to black people.

When I think of San Francisco I think about how many gay people complain about the end of the Halloween party because of all of "those people" that have come in to ruin it.

When I think of San Francisco I think of how Barack Obama asked Gavin Newsom to hold a fundraiser for him and then wouldn't take a picture with him because he didn't want to be tied to the "gay marriage mayor."

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-14 09:09PM | 0 recs
So

You think that Hillary's repeated reference to San Francisco when attacking Barack Obama for his comments is meant as, what, a contrast?  Like, how could Obama go to such a lovely city as San Francisco and dare say such horrible things?

Well, that's a perspective.

Or is it that she meant not to reference "the gay marriage mayor" but rather to reference . . . gentrification and racism?

Again, a perspective.  But really, I think we know that San Francisco is not as well-known for it's gentrification as it is for it's, as you say, "the gay marriage mayor."

by Drew 2008-04-14 09:18PM | 0 recs
First Thing She Said At Messiah College
Was "elitist" and "San Francisco." I thought it was pandering to the presumably rabid homophobia of the religious forum who would lap up some Coulter applause lines. Did-not-happen.
by bernardpliers 2008-04-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.

I am certain that Clinton is not a homophobe but I am also equally certain that it is no accident that she keeps inserting "in San Francisco" in each mention of the comments at issue.  Whatever her own beliefs about homosexuality, she is under the popularly held, but entirely misguided notion, that people hear San Francisco and have negative associations. Why else would she keep doing it? Where he said the comments is as relevant to this debate as the fact that I am a Pisces.

by wasder 2008-04-14 08:19PM | 0 recs
He was IN SanFrancisco when he

spoke for fucks sake. I'm gay. I hear no whistle. Find something else to cling to.

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-14 08:19PM | 0 recs
So if it were Pittsburg

Hillary and her supporters would find it as interesting?

I doubt it.  But you got ahead and rationalize it.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:26PM | 0 recs
Alright. We'll play it your way. We can say

"...when Obama was speaking to a group of donors at a $1,000.00 per head fundraiser in -------, he made some untoward comments."

Does that work better for you?

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-14 08:31PM | 0 recs
Hm.

You still seem to need to keep the location around.  Why is that?

I mean, if the concern really were about the money, and not about the location, why has the location been so important to Hillary and her supporters?

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: So if it were Pittsburg

Pittsburgh is in Pennsylvania.  Pittsburgh is one of the places and types of people he was talking about.  It's like he was accross the country speaking with the exact opposite type of people as the country folk he was talking about from PA.  SF has some high falutin types of millionairs we don't have here in PA.  We have plenty of gay people though.  We are talking economic levels in this.  It was like he had just been to the zoo, and they were asking him how he was going to tame those animals.  He explained what he thought was going on in PA like we are a bunch of cud chewing, backwoods gun nuts, who go to sunday meetings everyday of the week. I can just picture a group of Sf millionaires sitting there with their mouths hanging open trying to picture all the poor downtrodden backwoods people.   I guess you have to be from here to understand why the group of people he was talking to is significant because of their financial situation, and because of their location. It's like he was talking about us behind our backs and they were all having a good laugh.  Oh well, what's the use....

by Scotch 2008-04-14 08:37PM | 0 recs
So Pittsburgh

Is a small town now?  And there are no millionaires in Pennsylvania?  Did Theresa Heinz-Kerry take all your money when she moved to Massachusetts?

Really.  Who's reducing whom to a stereotype now?

Truth is, there are plenty of donors in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania who are as rich as, and richer than, anyone in San Francisco.

The difference is that their city has not the well-deserved reputation for tolerance that has rendered it worthy of ridicule from people like Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

by Drew 2008-04-14 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: So Pittsburgh

You have purposely twisted everything, but it didn't work.  He wouldn't be telling the people of pennsylvania about the people of pennsylvania.  They would call him on it in Pittsburgh.  They would hang his ass out to dry if he said something like that, because unlike the millionaires in SF who haven't a clue about PA, the millionaires in Pittsburgh knows the truth.

by Scotch 2008-04-15 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: He was IN SanFrancisco when he

One reference to the place where he made the remarks is one thing, constantly referring to it is another. Go and look at the various videotapes floating around. She did it over and over again and I guarantee you if it had been Kalamazoo or Skokie or any other place it would not have become a constant talking point. This is not something that is a huge issue but to deny that there is subtext in her comments is naive or uninformed.

by wasder 2008-04-14 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: He was IN SanFrancisco when he

ummm...try harder.

Since so many people hear a whistle blowing, and you cannot...clearly there is something wrong with you =)

by SevenStrings 2008-04-14 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.

Oh my God.  I'm going to fall over laughing at this.  I couldn't have thought it up in a million years.  I'm going to bed now.  Night.  

by Scotch 2008-04-14 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.

It's OK to call San Francisco elite and whatever you want. But don't do anything except blow sunshine up middle America's a**? As some one who was raised in Marin county, I have a serious problem with anyone who takes that attitude.

Also, as someone who lives in NYC, I find it highly disingenuous for her to say no one she represents in New York is bitter. Either she her self is grossly out of touch, or lying through her teeth.

by Grant Caesar Peters 2008-04-14 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.


San Francisco is probably the most liberal metro area in America.

Sure there are gay people there but they voted for Hillary.

Liberal elite vote with Obama.

The oppressed except black people this cycle are pretty much lining up behind Hillary.

by DTaylor 2008-04-14 08:39PM | 0 recs
San Francisco

I live in SF now and I know for a fact that Hillary raised a lot of cash, much of it from the gay community. I hope those who have not yet maxed out heard what she said.

by RandyMI 2008-04-14 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.

I lived in San Francisco for ten years and was very active in rights causes there and it never even occurred to me once that San Francisco was some sort of dog whistle for gay in this context.  

by markjay 2008-04-14 08:58PM | 0 recs
It's not a gay thing

It's an elite-latte-liberal-looking-down-on-the- rest-of-America thing.  One of the things that irks me most about this whole ordeal - WHY DID BARACK HAVE TO DRAG MY CITY INTO THIS MESS?

Jeanne Kirkpatrick's "San Francisco Democrats" was definite homophobic dogwhistling, but this, nah.  San Francisco's liberal intelligentsia is a caricature of itself.  The gays I know all support Hillary or McCain.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-14 09:18PM | 0 recs
Again

If a Republican - Jeanne Kirkpatrick, here - were to say it, then it'd be homophobic.  But if the candidate who campaigned for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for the Defense of Marriage Act, says it - well, and if that candidate is Clinton - then it's a reference to . . . something else.

It must be nice to be a Clinton.

by Drew 2008-04-14 09:23PM | 0 recs
No

1984 vs 2008.

Not R vs. D.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-14 09:24PM | 0 recs
2007 vs 2008.

Or, more likely, March 2008 vs. April 2008.

Although I do agree that it's not R vs. D.  It's Clinton vs. Anyone Else.  Obama couldn't have attacked Hillary as having the support of San Francisco without being accused of homophobia.

But Clinton?  She can have the man who signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act" into law, and she's golden.

And she can count on you to defend her.  Tell me, if she wins, will you defend her when she signs her "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," too?  Will it be the fault of the Republicans then, too?

Or will there finally be some blame for those of us who allowed her, as her husband was allowed, to exploit this sort of homophobia, knowing that she would face no consequence.

by Drew 2008-04-14 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: 2007 vs 2008.

DADT was an improvement for gay service people. Second time I have said this to you. It replaced imprison, court martial, dishonorable discharge. Not ideal but an improvement. If you want to blame someone for DADT, go after Colin Powell, fagbasher extraordinaire. He is the one who sabatoged opening up the military, resulting in DADT.

Hillary lead the procedural battle that defeated FMA. She prevented it from coming to a vote in the senate. Using DOMA among other things. Awful as DOMA is, it holds back things that are much worse.

Obama has a major homophobia issue. He looses gay voters by a landslide. He has no prominent gays around him. This diary just makes matters worse.

by DaleA 2008-04-14 09:49PM | 0 recs
It's the incremental vs radical change

It's the dichotomy between people who want radical change because "it's right" and who want to use the force of government to make people listen vs. the people who will accept incremental change because they know that they can gradually persuade people along the way.

Without DADT, there would have been a more draconian law passed, possibly with veto-proof margins.  DOMA has for the most part had Zero practical impact on people's lives and has been the biggest thing keeping a Constitutional Amendment at bay.  Sure I'd like to get married, but gay couples in so many states have so many more protections than we did even 5 years ago, and public opinion continues to shift.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-14 09:56PM | 0 recs
No, it's excuses vs. accountability.

You and DaleA can continue to tell yourselves that the Clintons did their best, that it was the fault of the nasty Republicans, and so on.  I used to buy that.  But the truth is, Bill was under no obligation to sign DOMA.  Hillary was under no obligation to support DOMA.

Yet both did.  Because it was easier for both of them to support homophobia than oppose it.

And it won't stop being easier until people who should hold them accountable for their homophobia do so.  

Hillary didn't change her position on DOMA until she had to run against another Democrat who opposed DOMA.  That's who she is; she won't move forward unless she's moved forward.

So move her forward.  Stop making excuses for her.

But I should know better than to expect that.  After all, it's not homophobia if it's Hillary.

by Drew 2008-04-14 10:17PM | 0 recs
Hillary is reminding lesbians and gays

that these are the anti-gay liberals in San Francisco. The ones embarassed by Mayor Newcome. The ones who want gays to shut up and be invisible. The ones who keep trying to shut down sex positive venues. The ones who keep giving in to churches and conservatives at our expense.She is letting us know what these 'phobes are up to. Giving money to Obama is what they are doing. Mentioning San Francisco brings up how there are many liberals who are not reliable gay allies.

Hillary beats Obama about 2 to 1 among gay voters. Those in her coalition can live with a whole bunch of fags and dykes alongside them. Remember, Obama has been picketed by queers. Hillary has not.

by DaleA 2008-04-14 09:40PM | 0 recs
Now San Francisco

Means that she loves gay people!  Of course!

Those in her coalition can live with a whole bunch of fags and dykes alongside them.

You may believe that, but I wonder.  If she believes that her coalition is receptive to these sorts of coded homophobic appeals, then clearly she does not believe that they are as comfortable with gay people as you'd like to believe.  Worse, she's willing to exploit that homophobia for political gain.

At some point, she may have to choose between those two.  And which will she choose?  History is not in our favor.

Remember, Obama has been picketed by queers. Hillary has not.

Given the prevailing "it's not homophobia if it's Hillary" sentiment, I can see why that would be the case.  Hillary could support DOMA - oh wait, she did - and still be praised as a beacon of tolerance in a world of bigotry.  Obama could oppose it - oh wait, he did - and nevertheless still have to prove his worth.

by Drew 2008-04-14 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Now San Francisco

You are right, Obama does have a lot to prove. Hillary does not.

She has had, and defended in public, openly gay staffers going back to Arkansas. She has consistently stood with gay people for over 20 years. In Arkansas, she set up a system for PWA's that was praised by ACT-UP as one of the best in the nation. In 1991. All federal level elected gay and lesbian officials endorse her. None endorse Obama.

Looking at Obama's gay endorsements, I see that most are Chicago political people. (Missing is culture hero Chuck Renslow.) After his incredibly condesending interview in the Advocate, and his persistent refusal to speak to the gay press nationwide, the situation is getting worse. The Green and Libertarian parties are looking better all the time, if he is the candidate.

Damning a vast improvement in gay peoples' live like DADT is an incredibly stupid move by Obama supporters. It shows the same insensitivity and lack of respect for gay people that their candidate consistently shows.

by DaleA 2008-04-14 10:17PM | 0 recs
Funny.

For one, I'm gay.  So I'm curious to know how I'm showing "insensitivity and lack of respect" to myself, Dale, by refusing to praise Clinton for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Really, how about you pretend like you don't speak for everyone?  

Otherwise, I think it's Clinton who has a lot to prove.  For "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  For "Defense of Marriage Act."  And for this "San Francisco" bull, most recently.

I should ignore this because she defended her staffers?  Did they get an exception from DADT or DOMA?  I'm guessing no.

Obama is not without flaw, but here?  In my view, he's superior.  If only because he's not the one presently attacking San Francisco.

by Drew 2008-04-14 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny.

As I said before, DADT was a big improvement. DOMA is problematical, but it has stood as a bulwark against many things which are much worse.

So, why don't you tell me about all the gay people in Obama's life. Hillary has them, I have meet some and heard her tell of others.

Why not tell me about the gay union ceremonies Obama has attended. Hillary has done so.

Why not tell me about all the gay people in Obama's life. Hillary has done so.

Why not tell me about Obama's gay supporters who are known widely in the gay community? Hillary has done so.

Something difficult to put into words. Why does Obama keep dragging in something that is for gay and lesbian people no different from the Church of Jesus Christ Aryan, the Black Church? This is something that gives me real pause. My own direct, personal and real experience of the Black Church is of a group where Fred Phelps would feel at home. Having lived in Chicago as a gay man, I have a really, really bad experience of the Black Church. I experience it as nothing more than hate filled, homophobic superstition. Why doesn't Obama separate from this cesspool of ignorance and superstition?

Bedtime.

by DaleA 2008-04-14 10:55PM | 0 recs
Tell me about the gay people

In Dick Cheney's life, Dale.  

I often hear of Hillary's many, many gay friends.  Usually from one of them.  But I'm not one of them.  So unlike them, I have to judge her like a politician.  And as a politician, she comes up short.

DOMA is problematical, but it has stood as a bulwark against many things which are much worse.

So Hillary claims, and of course, it is in her interest to do so.  It's more bull.  DOMA did not require her husband's signature, nor did it require her support, yet both freely gave it.  

Until she had to run aganst Obama, among others.  Then she changed her mind.  Because it wasn't about "many things which are much worse," unless you consider one of them a more difficult election for Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Really, Dale.  Why, if DOMA is about protecting me, did Clinton only change her mind when it began to hurt her?

Why does Obama keep dragging in something that is for gay and lesbian people no different from the Church of Jesus Christ Aryan, the Black Church?  This is something that gives me real pause.

Well, that is an unpleasant non-surprise.  

Suffice it to say, I am no more comfortable generalizing about "The Black Church" than I am about "The White Church" or "The Hispanic Church."  YMMV, of course.

I can say that "The White Church," or the Southern Baptist Convention, from which Bill Clinton comes, didn't seem to worry anyone, in spite of its retrograde views.  Ditto for the Catholic Church, from which John Kerry came.  And the Methodist Church, from which Hillary comes.

So I don't see why anyone would be so concerned about "The Black Church," or the United Churches of Christ, from which Barack Obama comes, especially given the liberal reputation of the UCC, and of Obama's church in particular, which is gay-affirming.  It even includes a gay and lesbian singles ministry.

Does Hillary's?

Why doesn't Obama separate from this cesspool of ignorance and superstition?

Clearly, he's not as enlightened as you, Dale.

by Drew 2008-04-14 11:24PM | 0 recs
You seriously just called Hillary Clinton
homophobic? What on earth is wrong with you? What do you have to say about Obama's decision to recruit McClurkin?
by sricki 2008-04-14 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You seriously just called Hillary Clinton
Okay, nevermind, I guess. Should have read the tags first.
by sricki 2008-04-14 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.

I think she's mentioning San Francisco repeatedly because the city brings up connotations of far left liberals.  While I don't agree with the strategy, it further reinforces the idea of Obama as an out of touch elitist by pointing out that he spoke the offending words in a liberal community.

I don't see her referencing sexual orientation at all.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-14 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: And he said it in San Francisco.

SF, LA, NYC and don't forget, Hollywood, are all cities that many rural and small town voters do not look up to - they may like to vacation there, but not live there.

it is all perception, but it is also due to the fact that those cities, along with Boston to some degree, are the most expensive cities to live in the US.

If Obama had the fundraiser in any of those cities instead of SF, the charge would be the same.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but the perception of extreme liberalness.

BTW: I lived in 2 of those cities and enjoyed the liberalness (as I am one).  I don't want people calling me a troll for stating the truth about perception.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-15 03:41AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads