Feigned outrage alert: Caroline Kennedy steps up to the plate on gay marriage.

Well what will happen now, here at MyDailyFeignedOutrage?

For days, the rec list has been glutted by fakes and phonies, who claim to have been offended by Rick Warren's five minute invocation at the inaugural,
that it shows Obama has turned his back on the GLBT community.

We are heading for the great depression II the sequel, yet NOTHING matters but fucking Rick Warren and a five minute prayer.

Unless, it was gender traitor Caroline Kennedy.

Like dogs endlessly chasing their tails, they have used the same shop-worn subjects to diss Obama, to attack subtly and not so subtly Kennedy
and to invite their loathsome racist friends to come join in.

The express lane from LarrySinclairsPalaceOfInternetHate.com was open for all traffic and the PUMA riff-raff appeared
to glut up the diaries with their stupid nonsense.

Of course, most of these posters didn't give a rats-ass during the campaign about gay marriage as a hot topic, Senator Clinton wasn't for it,
and what ever "their girl" said, that was good enough for them.

But, as soon as Obama announced Warren would give a five minute prayer we had posters going so far as to bring out the pink star analogy?  
Talk about hyperbole and jumping the Goodwin Shark!

Well, today, as I would expect a person on the younger side of the generational fault line to do, Caroline Kennedy unambiguously stepped up and declared
that she "supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples,"

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/20/C aroline_Kennedy_backs_same-sex_marriage/ UPI-72291229813358/

Caroline Kennedy today has gone a place that neither President Elect Obama, Hillary OR Bill Clinton has gone, and endorsed Gay marriage in full and total.

Doesn't mean she deserves to be the next Senator from New York, but it sort of puts our Puma crew in a bind?

If Gay Marriage is the Raison d'être of Liberal Politics, as some have claimed here (in their attempts to diss Obama) then CLEARLY according to their criterion,
Caroline Kennedy is a better candidate for NY Senate then Senator Clinton ever was?

Tags: Caroline Kennedy, Feigned Outrage, Puma Alert! (all tags)

Comments

60 Comments

Re: Feigned outrage alert:

When you have nothing to lose( election) , you can step out like  Travolta on Saturday night.   Else Obama would have been most liberal guy in his agenda.

Seriously what does she have to lose?... this is ONE guy handing her the job vs we the people...

Please allow me to be a senator I will have Markos from dailykos as my manager.  

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-20 07:09PM | 0 recs
Okay, now you're not even making sense

What does Obama or Markos have to do with Caroline Kennedy? Senators are appointed to vacant seats. She'll have to face reelection in 2012.

by iohs2008 2008-12-20 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, now you're not even making sense

It all goes back to the original sin, where this dipshit was originally thrown off of DK because of the obvious unhinged/delusional characteristics.  DK endorsed Obama as well.  Hence all hate for Kos and Obama.  Remeber how these pieces of shit turned on HIllary when she endorsed Obama?  Yeah, these are sick fucks, or just republicans, but I really think it is more psychological, the republicans I know are aren't insane

by KLRinLA 2008-12-21 08:47AM | 0 recs
He's a dittohead wannabe

The only thing sadder than a dittohead itself.

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-21 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe

but, she does have nothing to lose, and it's likely her base sees it coming and is glad about it.  Hillary and Barack said the same about gay marriage, but Hillary had been publicly supportive of gay rights and equality for gays for multi-years, and Barack followed her there.  

Most Hillary supporters wanted Barack to win the GE, and didn't just follow her but agreed with her.

I'm not from NY but I think it's embarrassing that Caroline is out trying to get appointed. I agree that it's got sexist undertones, in that there is an assumption that once a seat is held by a woman, any other woman will be acceptable to women.  We're so silly, we can't tell each other apart.  

by anna shane 2008-12-21 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe

I think it's embarrassing that Caroline is out trying to get appointed.  I agree that it's got sexist undertones, in that there is an assumption that once a seat is held by a woman, any other woman will be acceptable to women.  We're so silly, we can't tell each other apart.

Well, it doesn't strike me that there's anything particularly strange about Caroline Kennedy being interested in and seeking such an appointment. After all, she is from a family that is rather famous for its interest in politics.  Of course she can't help being female, she was born with that trait (occurs in around 50% of all births!)

Downthread you say if she's appointed, "it's a sign of corruption."  That's pretty strong language.  Again, it's not her fault that she has wealth and fame.  

In another universe, Caroline Kennedy might have thought to herself "I shouldn't seek this appointment, even though I am interested in this job, because there are others arguably more qualified, and I don't want to give anyone the impression that where I get in life has anything to do with my family's fame and wealth."  It just didn't happen in our universe. Maybe that's regrettable, but I wouldn't leap to conclude it's a sign of corruption.  

by Rob in Vermont 2008-12-21 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe

sure, she knows she's a Kennedy and has power backing and that she isn't required to get ahead on her own so she can express interest in any job she's never trained for and she'll get press.  One hoped she'd have the sense to know that she isn't qualified, but seems she doesn't, so sure, she can seek it. And others can fawn all over her too.  It's a sign of the corruption that makes Blago... just a cruder form of Teddy (and maybe not even that, we don't have Teddy on tape).  They trade favors, and we all pay. It's okay with you, it isn't okay with me, but neither of us can do a thing about it, decisions aren't made at our level.  

by anna shane 2008-12-22 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe

Funny, I didn't see it in gender terms at all.

I saw it as replacing one political superstar with another.

More a case of celebrity and money-raising potential.

by Bush Bites 2008-12-21 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe

It's under your radar?  Barack started with no advantages and he managed to convince money backers he'd make a credible president.  But if someone high born had been there first (a handsome motivational guy, someone they could run against Hillary who already had a name) Barack might not have broken through the barriers.  Who won't get that chance if Caroline is appointed?  

by anna shane 2008-12-22 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe
I agree that it's got sexist undertones, in that there is an assumption that once a seat is held by a woman, any other woman will be acceptable to women. We're so silly, we can't tell each other apart.

Are women also "so silly" that they couldn't possibly be stepping up to this nomination on their own recognition? Ask yourself, Anna, whether this is truly a case of weak women being fronted by invisible controlling men - as you imply, or whether it isn't a cross-gender perception that only women would be considered as likely replacements?
by Sumo Vita 2008-12-21 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe

i don't think women are silly, the pugs thought so when they picked Sarah and Teddy might think Caroline will get a pass on her privilege cause she's female.  I'm saying she won't get that pass, we can tell each other apart, even if some guys can't.  Which does not mean that some people (women and men) might not still feel so dazzled by the Kennedy connection and see her as glamorizing their lives that they want her.  

What is human is voluntary servitude, the kind we're not forced into.  Someone wants to bow down before the Kennedy's, that's their own choice.  I happen to think it's unseemly, but then won't be the first time someone has achieved power simply by being born into a particular family of fortune.  

by anna shane 2008-12-22 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: He's a dittohead wannabe

I find little to disagree with in what you've just written, other than the implication that Caroline is all glamor and no substance. A lack of political experience wouldn't concern me - a lack of understanding of the core issues probably would (and then we'd be in complete agreement).

My earlier response, however, touched on your allegation of sexism in the appointment. I was looking for you to clarify exactly who you found to be sexist in this scenario - the contenders themselves, or their mysterious hidden male handlers?

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-22 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, now you're not even making sense


Obama was referenced because his move to the center in the GE was to win the presidency. IF he was going to be anointed to the position , he would not bothered to move to the center i.e election have consequences vs anointment.

DK was referenced as a sarcasm to further illustrate the point that when you have no election to lose by being anointed , you can  have the most liberal side of our party- an obvious lighting rod for moderates and right of center electorate,  be a campaign manager w/o risking your anointment.

Caroline can say any darn thing now because she does not have anything to lose.

Thank you for playing " clueless".

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert:

She has a lot to lose in personal prestige if the appointment doesn't eventually come her way, or if she isn't re-elected.

Oh, and "we the people" elect both governors and senators while fully cognizant of the fact that the former may end up appointing the latter's replacement. The overwhelming majority of federal positions are filled via appointments, not the ballot box. Caroline's would be no different.

by Sumo Vita 2008-12-21 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re:

I watched a re-run of a C-SPAN interview with Caroline Kennedy and Ellen Alderman, co-authors of "In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action". Fascinating and informative. One of the shitheads you refer to has talked of 'CK's Ghostwriter', a smear based on nothing but a hatred of Caroline, and plainly exposed in the course of the interview to be so wrong as to convict the scurrilous liar of libel.

Get to know a younger Caroline and her co-author by watching the interview for yourself.

http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?Progra mID=1050

by QTG 2008-12-20 07:17PM | 0 recs
heh.

while i agree with the content of the diary....

are you not doing exactly what you accuse others of doing?  namely drawing comparisons to clinton?  listen - you're right in practice about what's gone on in recent days here - but im sorry (while i personally am ambivalent about kennedy) framing criticism of her potential appointment as primary crap is wrong and well makes those that call it that, the same as PUMA - but without a fancy name behind it.

by canadian gal 2008-12-20 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: heh.

CG, perhaps you feel comfortable in this swamp pit MyDD has become?

Our Key posters seem to be various socket-puppets, and the rec list always has at least ONE fake outrage at Warren/Obama from folks
WHO DIDN'T SAY SHIT
about gay marriage during the primaries.

And would be DEFENDING their gal if she made the same move Obama did, you know it, I know it.

Nothing is worse then feigned outrage, it's been the Republican modus operandi for the last 40 years.

Most are bitter clintonites, returned from racists hell-holes like No Quarters?

Many spent endless hours in crap like Birth Certificate gate?

I am pointing out the fake outrage, and my point about Kennedy stepping beyond the Clintons...

BTW How come you didn't mention I also said she stepped beyond Obama......

Was to point out these crackers will NOT care a bit, even though they Piss and Moan about Warren.

They are fakes, they don't care about Kennedy OR Gay Rights.

They hate Obama, because he beat their gal.

And MyDD is a traffic jam of garbage because of their return.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: heh.

Well said Wash, and I highly rec. this diary.

by venician 2008-12-21 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: heh.

you're cute, but wrong.  The outrage is coming from the gay community, many of whom may have been HIllary supporters, but also Barack supporters, she didn't have the entire gay vote.  

The outrage is by Barack supporters who didn't follow his governing philosophy very closely.  Of course Barack is going to give something to the hate-gay's community, they're people too and he's trying to build bridges, not identify enemies.  As a Hillary supporter but Barack listener, this does not surprise me.  Barack has been consistent, it's his empathy message.

Gay marriage is coming, it's a matter of time, and a matter of state.  Younger Americans see less of a point in marriage as institutional, and more of a point in equality as justice.  

by anna shane 2008-12-21 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

Well, I'm still disappointed by the Warren thing, still not a fan of Kennedy for the Senate seat... and still not persuaded that I'm a big fat hypocrite, sorry.  Good on her for making that statement, though.

I'm not sure what you mean about the generational divide tho.  In California the good guys lost every age group except 18-29.  I sure wish we were winning among folks Caroline Kennedy's age, but I don't think we are.

by Steve M 2008-12-20 08:48PM | 0 recs
Good comments, right on it

Prop 8 is a crime, pure and simple.

Fuck the Catholic and Mormon Churchs, their tax free status should be pulled forthwith, they are now basically political organizations, nothing more.

You are exactly right, this is a generational war, with a few cross overs voting based on religious propaganda (I read the Latino vote that went overwhelmingly for Obama split on prop 8)

And, to trivialize it by dragging in Primaries wars IS the point of this diary.

I think at least HALF these posters dont give a crap about LGBT issues, they are just looking for a reason to pound Obama.

As far as inviting Warren, I am mixed about that, to be honest.

I think Obama HAS NOT changed his position on rights for GLBT, and I think his idea to keep a channel of communication open to the Evangelicals is a legit idea, especially if we can reach the younger generations there.

But, it DOES bug me. Warren has this sheen of Christian goodness, but he played the same old "What's next? Who can marry who if this passes".

I'm sorry, I am old enough to remember the same religious claptrap about interracial marriage.

Basically, I would make a lousy politician, cause I would start screaming at this bigots.

Good thing Obama is President, and not me or most of the other hot-heads at MyDD.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Good comments, right on it

it's not a crime, it's unconstitutional.  It was probably a way to bring pugs to the polls to defeat the dem candidate.  Jerry Brown says it will be thrown out.  

by anna shane 2008-12-21 02:11PM | 0 recs
Ok, you got me

It's a crime against my sensibilities.

I hope Jerry is right. Throw that pig out!

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 02:16PM | 0 recs
It's good news for the LGBT

She's a fairly high-profile supporter, not just as a Kennedy, but as someone who helped pick the VP, a potential Senator, etc. This effectively mainstreams the issue.

It's also a political masterstroke, in several ways, for several people. I don't think the timing of this is unrelated to the Warren fiasco.

by Neef 2008-12-20 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

Oh well, the peace around here was nice while it lasted.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-12-21 12:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

The real issue here is blurring the line between deserving accomplishment and political entitlement. The next United States senator from New York ought to be someone who has worked for the honor. It bothers me that Caroline dosen't appear interested in playing by the rules or waiting her turn. The hugely qualified Carolyn Maloney, for example, is a workhorse, and is backed by NOW.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-12-21 01:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

Did it bother you when Hillary parachuted into the job from outside the state? And before anyone brings it up... Caroline has as "much" experience through proximity to famous relatives as Hillary did when she ran for Senate. Qualified people had to step aside for her too. I am not to happy about the dynasty thing but lets be fair in our criticism.

by TMP 2008-12-21 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

Not to hijack the diary, but this is completely incorrect.

Senator Clinton did not just have "proximity" to famous relatives; she was an active partner in a relationship that elevated Bill Clinton to the Presidency. Caroline Kennedy has no such experience to draw upon; she has occasional family interaction with her uncles and brothers. Equating the two experiences is simply false. [Which is also not to say that Kennedy doesn't have the private-sector experience to be a successful senator, which is quite a separate topic.]

To bring it back to the topic of gay marriage: I am a quite successful employee within my company, and I know that there is no way I could have been elevated into my position without the support of my husband. And the support of my company, which treats him the same way as they treat opposite-sex spouses. we talk a lot about the tangible tax and other benefits of recognizing our same-sex marriages, but the benefits to extending recognition to them extend quite farther. The experience of a marriage relationship is, in fact, invaluable.

by fsm 2008-12-21 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

Hillary moved to N.Y., subsequently became interested in the job, campaigned, and won. No one handed her anything.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-12-21 08:48AM | 0 recs
Oh Please Phoenix....

That is a great simplification of the situation.

I think the similarities are there, no need to pretend otherwise.

The Clinton Machine gave her plent of help and a leveraged start-up into Dan Monihyans seat.

Daniel himself introduced her, and candidates WHO were in more of the traditional line to get the seat, such as Nita Lowey, were "discouraged" from running.

Just as Daniels wife introduced Caroline?

Ms Clinton used her name and her fame, JUST as Kennedy is, though so far, I think Kennedy is doing no where near as good of a job. Sending out surrogates to face the press is not a good sign.

Hillary waded right into the trenches, Caroline seems to want to tread around the outside.

Of course, one was running for the office, One is trying to get appointed. But, I would like to see Caroline face the press, and head upstate, as Senator Clinton did.

Let's be clear, Senator Clinton worked her ass off to get that seat, but your 'slight' reworking of history acts as if she was some no-name who waltzed in unannounced.

She was handed PLENTY, a head start from the powerful Clinton Machine, and it helped her get the seat.

Why do we need to pretend otherwise?

She used leverage, Kennedy is using leverage?

To pretend otherwise is disengenious.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Please Phoenix....

PD is accurate, Hillary had an exploratory committee, she raised cash, she campaigned and faced the humiliation of defeat. She had the press after her, and when she won it was claimed that she got the pity vote, cause of her husband's impeachment.   I'd be just fine if the seat was available and she was running for it, and took her own chance with humiliating defeat. Once she's in she'll be the Dem candidate, and that's the only one that can turn out humiliating. Let her run with the job is open, in the primary. Let her show her girt and brains when reporters on on her and when she's exhausted.  Otherwise it's a sign of corruption at the highest levels, with is why Blag did no crime, but was only following in the footsteps of his 'betters.'

by anna shane 2008-12-21 02:17PM | 0 recs
Anne, you are certainly reading between the lines

For PD..

Look, I admit, I would prefer Caroline had to run, had already run for elected office.

But, neither had Hillary?

I have already stated, so far, Hillary did a better job, but Caroline's route would be different.  Appointment, rather then an election.

The problem with your suggestion is, SOME DEMOCRAT is going to get the appointment, and they will be the incumbent.

I am not convinced Caroline is the right person, but so far the suggested alternatives don't look like they have the name, fund raising ability to take on Rudy? or Peter King?

Does Caroline?  I don't know, but the reason jerk-waters like KnowVox hate her is simple: She didn't back their girl in the primaries.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 02:31PM | 0 recs
PD is a friend

I admit, but they aren't at all the same.  winning voters isn't the same thing as winning rich influential support.  We don't know how she'd stand up because she hasn't had to.  Anyone who has already won an elected office and can show they have money backing for that job will work, whoever Patterson chooses, he gets to, it's his call.  

I will feel personally offended if Caroline gets it this way.  We aren't yet a monarchy and the rich may have control of all the money but that doesn't mean it feels good when they shove it down our throats.  

But, you're still cute!!!

by anna shane 2008-12-21 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Anne, you are certainly reading

I am not particularly worried about having the name recogition to take on Peter King. The NY GOP is a dying breed. It's a matter of time before King won't be able to hold his own House seat due to demographics. Rudy, I think, is finished in any sort of politics too. I think Carolyn Maloney, if even the opportunity, would defeat him by a solid margin in a senate race.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-12-22 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

Clinton did have to win the the seat though, it wasn't literally handed to her.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-12-22 06:01AM | 0 recs
Peace?

You mean the overrunning of the phony returners from No Quarter, and the fact many of the best posters have high-tailed it out of this sad replica of what it was in it's better days?

If you mean Peace because we have been overrun by sockpuppets of KnowVox, that's not peace, that is an occupation.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Peace?

Very few are willing to rise above it, so to do the same thing rings of the pot calling the kettle black, and we're right back where we were during the primary. That's what I meant.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-12-21 08:55AM | 0 recs
Pink Star?

I think you have confused the real world with an episode of  "Spongebob Squarepants." Again.

by Sadie Baker 2008-12-21 02:35AM | 0 recs
Again?

Sorry, you probably have me confused with one of KnowVoxs sock-puppets.

Easy to do, since probably 30% of the posters here are her.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 05:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert

this diary is the most 'feigned-outrage' thing I've seen in a few days! outrage over people being concerned and upset about GLBT civil rights and not building bridges with homophobes. hmmm. you've got some nerve demeaning people raising the valid issues of civil rights and not coddling to homophobes. And what this has to do with Caroline Kennedy is just beyond me. So she supports gay marriage --- now we should shut up about Warren? I wouldn't shut up if he'd invited a klans man and i won't shut up about the stupidity of inviting warren either.

by swissffun 2008-12-21 02:56AM | 0 recs
You guys hear a little dog yipping?

Sounds like a very small yapper....

The Sock-Puppet Swiss Fun, back from a self-imposed exile after the total humilation of world class wrong in the primary and General.

You are exactly the kind of phony I am talking about, gay marriage was off-limits when "your gal" was running in the primaries.

Go back to your racist haunts, you and your ilk have disqualified yourself from any discussion of civil rights by contamination in the racist pit you have held out in....

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You guys hear a little dog yipping?

totally out of line personal attacks. chill.

by swissffun 2008-12-21 05:13AM | 0 recs
Feigned outrage about feigned outrage!!

How Meta can you get....

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert: Caroline Kennedy steps

I'm an ex-Puma and I don't have a problem with Caroline Kennedy taking Hillary's Senate seat.

I think what most people are saying is that she came in from left field without working for it. There are many qualified, excellent NY congress women that would have been great too. However, it is doubtful that any of them have the clout due to Kennedy's name and will be able to compete against a Guiliani, or other potential "famous" Republican opponent. For this reason, and $$$$, I am certain Caroline will get the seat and that's GREAT for the Democratic Party.

As a Gay Person who recently married in CA, I appreciate Caroline speaking out on it. To clarify, Hillary may have said that "marriage should be between a man and a woman" - but - the difference between Hillary and Obama with regards to the gay community is her involvement. Hillary has helped to fund local pro-gay schools, events in NY, marched in the NY pride parade and has been an advocate for Gay rights throughout the years.

I do not believe (had the tables been turned) and Hillary was the Pres-elect, she would have selected Warren or any controversial minister for that matter. For whatever reason - Obama seems to "pick" controversial ministers - not sure what that is all about. I know Obama is pro-gay rights, just like he is pro-women's rights. My issue is not with Obama's WORDS, but his ACTIONS. I am not sure what his ACTIONS have been in support of gay rights or women's rights (for that matter). I am open to Obama and have stated I support him and do support him (now). We have to move forward as a Party in spite of our differences.

But, I have no doubt that Caroline will be an advocate for both women and gays - she is, afterall, a progressive, liberal, Kennedy Democrat.

by nikkid 2008-12-21 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert: Caroline Kennedy steps

Congratulations on your marriage!  I'm really hoping that the legal challenges to Prop 8 get the California Supreme Court to overturn it in '09, and I think there's a good chance of that happening.  Anyway, congrats!

by thatpurplestuff 2008-12-21 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert: Caroline Kennedy steps

I second the congrats, and I know you will never stop fighting for what is right.

It IS generational. My parents could only wince when they saw an interacial couple.

My kid is just dumbfounded there is any controversy at all about Gay marriage.

My take on Obama is, it AGAIN is a generational thing.

The Clintons, and god knows I love them, are from the battles MY generation fought.

They were fighting Dobson and Falwell, and just as the time for those folks leading the Christian Right has passed,
I believe Obama is setting the pattern for how to deal with the Evangelical right on issues of Gay Rights.

I don't trust Warren a bit...He seems like a sheep in wolves clothing...

But, SOME of his flock belong to the millenials, and THOSE are the people Obama is trying to not ostracise.

But, I'm not gay, it's easy for me to have that viewpoint.

I have been married, and no one tried to stop me.

Of course, I KIND OF WISH SOMEONE WOULD HAVE!

(but, that's another story....)

Peace Out Nikkid...Swinging Saturnalia to yah!

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert: Caroline Kennedy steps

You do realize that Obama's Sec. of Education nominee is facing difficulty because he supported a pro-gay school in Chicago, don't you?

by Bush Bites 2008-12-21 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Feigned outrage alert: Caroline Kennedy steps

* Duncan has been a strong advocate for charter schools, performance pay for teachers, sex segregated education, and funding increases for No Child Left Behind. He also supported a proposal for a high school catering to gay students, called Pride Campus.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packag es/article/0,28804,1863062_1863058_18670 11,00.html

by Bush Bites 2008-12-21 07:29PM | 0 recs
What is a "Pro-Gay" school?

by activatedbybush 2008-12-22 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What is a "Pro-Gay" school?

It's a school geared towards gay students, so they don't get harassed and drop out.

by Jess81 2008-12-22 05:17AM | 0 recs
But lots of kids get harassed in HS

It sounds like "separate but (un)equal" to me...

by activatedbybush 2008-12-22 07:14AM | 0 recs
Do the right thing Paterson

Sorry, but I adamantly oppose Caroline Kennedy as United States Senator from New York. This is not about Kennedy endorsing Obama, she is free to support whomever she pleases in an election. That's all I have to say.

by RJEvans 2008-12-21 09:54AM | 0 recs
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury...

I  rest my case.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/12/21/163 725/44#1

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 11:49AM | 0 recs
Stalker much?

Why do you stay here if you hate this place so much? You are such a whiny pathetic loser. Get a life and get your own blog if you dislike this place so much. I'm going to throw up if I read anymore of your "witty" posts and "whiny" meta diaries.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-21 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Stalker much?

You've been throwing up all over this blog for a while now.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-12-21 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Stalker much?

Just checked your posting history. All you have done is comment in my diary or reply directly to me. Same goes for the troll hunter upthread. For all the crying and whining you do about having me here it seems you can't get enough of my posts. Either that or you have nothing better to do than cleanse this blog. Get a life loser.

by KnoxVow 2008-12-21 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Stalker much?

"I'm gonna be really honest with you for a second... I actually enjoy perusing your postings in a morbid sorta way.  It's kinda like flipping through the channels and stopping on a Maury Povich paternity test.  I know it's awful, I know it's a waste of time, but something in me still wants to know what happens next." -me

You're my Maury.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-12-21 01:17PM | 0 recs
Why do I stay here?

Because this is a great community for the most part, it's smaller then KOS, and livelier.

Besides, unlike you, I have only one identity, never been banned, and been called out and done my mea culpas on plenty of occasions?

I also contribute diaries (not this one, I admit) that are more then flame-bait.

You, on the other hand, come here for only ONE purpose.

Provocation.  

You diary NOTHING but flame-bait.

You ask for it and you love it, at least admit that.

I come for conversation.

I post on many diaries, you stick to the Obama flame bait.

You want a fight, and when you get, you fake being insulted (poorly, I might add.)

Hell, you come here to throw grenades, you invited your racist buds to join you.

AT LEAST be honest, you're here to be called out?

If everyone agreed with your nonsense, there would be no juice in it for you.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-21 02:09PM | 0 recs
BS

You say: "For days, the rec list has been glutted by fakes and phonies, who claim to have been offended by Rick Warren's five minute invocation at the inaugural, that it shows Obama has turned his back on the GLBT community."

Please stop misrepresenting the reality:  that while there may be some who are using Rick Warren to attack Obama, there are others, like me, who deeply disagree with Obama's decision.

But I, and I'm sure many others, don't for a second claim that, by this one act alone, Obama has turned his back on the LGBT community by this one act.

There are disagreements, and there are dramatic flourishes.  I always aim (though sometimes for naught) for the former; you seem to be doing the latter here.

by Sieglinde 2008-12-21 02:54PM | 0 recs
I never said there weren't folks with legit beefs

about Obama and Warren.

But, the vast majority of the diaries are just from returning PUMA provacatuers, and their sockpuppets.

I also never said legit folks like you claimed that, only the sock-puppets, who are just cruising for an excuse to dis Obama.

Well, as far as dramatic flourishes, each to his own.

I figure, since we have the KnowVox going over the top on an hourly basis, why not join in?

To each his own.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-22 08:11AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads