McClurkin vs Bill Clinton. Who is worse?

[Meldread]

I honestly do not understand the gay support for Hillary Clinton. As a gay man, it boggles my mind. On one hand, gay people seem to be enraged over the McClurkin incident. Fair enough. I completely understand - I didn't like it either. Yet, it seems to be pounded on again and again. I just don't get it.

On the one hand, you have this guy - McClurkin. He is mentally fucked up. He's a gay man who has been so traumatized by the Christian Right in this country, so fucked up in the head, that he's renounced his gayness in an attempt to hide from the truth. McClurkin is mentally ill. He needs serious, serious mental rehabilitation therapy to work through all the evil bullshit poison that has been fed to him.

On the other hand, you have Bill Clinton. What is his excuse? He is a former President and a high ranking member (if not the highest) of his wife's campaign. He has demonstrated not only his WILLINGNESS to throw gay people under the bus, but has advocated for others to do the same! Now, what's his excuse? He can't claim mental or emotional illness.

"Former President Bill Clinton was so concerned that he urged Kerry to back the state ballot measures banning gay marriage, according to the Nov. 15 issue of Newsweek. But Kerry told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that." Read it http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2004/11/05/news-1413230.html">here.

"A few days after Kerry's concession, Bill Clinton gave a speech at a conference of the Urban Land Institute in New York. The Daily News quoted him as saying that Kerry could have made more of an impact with small-town voters by emphasizing his opposition to gay marriage. "He said it once or twice, instead of 3,000 times, in rural communities. If we let people believe our party doesn't believe in faith and family, that's our fault." Clinton: our moral authority on marriage and sex. As a gay man in America, perhaps I am responsible for the unraveling of the moral fabric of this country, but I have never used a cigar in bed, and I absolutely draw the line at wearing a dress from the GAP." Read it http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/12/07_jesusland.html">here.

Thanks a lot, Bill! I feel the love!

However, let's go past Bill and dig deeper in the Clinton Campaign.

"Some of Clinton’s gay supporters, along with unaligned gays such as Wilson, said they’re generally unconcerned that anti-gay ministers Bishop Eddie Long and Rev. Harold Mayberry are supporting the campaign." Read it http://washblade.com/2007/11-2/news/national/11496.cfm">here.

While Hillary never gave them a Microphone like Obama did for McClurkin, she still hasn't denounced their support, returned their donations, or anything else. Neither Bill nor Hillary have apologized for what Bill did in 2004.

At the end of the day, when it comes to gay issues I look at all our candidates. Only Dennis supports us whole heartedly. Yet, we all know he has no chance of winning. None. Between Obama, Clinton and Edwards, they are nearly identical. Obama and Edwards support fully repealing DOMA and Clinton only supports repealing a small section of it. Otherwise, they are all identical.

I understand the outrage, but at the end of the day I think we need to look at this logically and not emotionally. I hate what Obama did, but we've been through this song and dance with the Clinton's before. They will tell us anything for our support, but if the going gets tough (and we know it will) the Clinton's get going. We are left with tire tracks on our back as they sell us out and run us over. Bill has proven that he is willing to do that, and there is no reason to believe that Hillary will take a different course.

So at the end of the day, who is worse on gay issues? To me it seems pretty obvious.

[More Than A Feeling]

1. Again with the Hillary! How about addressing the non-Hillary supporters?

"Hillary and Bill did it too" just doesn't cut it with us.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. So, you have no problem being a hypocrite?

You see how that kind of cheapens you're gripe?

[More Than A Feeling]

11. How would I be a hypocrite?

[Egnever]

14. Its a choice you have to make

if you decide you would rather support the ones that have actually stood in your way as opposed to someone that had an entertainer at one event. I guess you will have to live with your decision.

You will be forced to chose between the two eventually or throw your vote away and hope the ball lands on your side.

[More Than A Feeling]

15. Not at all, I already caucused for Edwards.

P.S. I love how you assume I'm gay. As though no straight person could be outraged over ex-gays.

[Egnever]

21. So then what difference does it make to you?

you already voted? Why do you care about supporters of other candidates? And no where did I assume you were gay I was addressing the issue not your personal sexuality.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. Why do I care? Because ex-gays are beyond the pale.

It's that simple. I don't want any politician in my party having anything to do with them. Much less one who might end up our party's nominee for president. Someone who talks about audacity and hope makes a mockery of those ideals by getting in bed, metaphorically speaking, with ex-gays. That means I have to decide whether or not I can stand to vote for him in the general.

[LulaMay]

2. Be happy about our candidates and our chances. It's time to stop tearing them down.

[MADem]

3. Bill Clinton is running? Who knew?

If you are bringing him up because he's Hillary's mentor, well, Lieberman is Obama's mentor...

[babylonsister]

7. Bullshit. Stop it. nt

[MADem]

52. Wow, aren't we being a bit didactic?

You might want to check your self-righteous mirror, there, Sunshine!

[Meldread]

18. McClurkin isn't running, either.

So I fail to see the point. Everyone jumps on Obama for the whole McClurkin thing, but no one - absolutely no one - is after Bill Clinton for what he did in 2004. It is hypercritical and a double standard. Bill Clinton actually holds a position in her campaign and will play a role in her White House.

McClurkin is a mentally fucked up hack who sings songs. There is a big difference there. If Hillary doesn't agree with Bill, why isn't she campaigning in such a way to prove that? Why doesn't she denounce it? Why doesn't she ask Bill to apologize for his remarks or apologize for him, while pointing out that she does not share them? Why isn't she supporting a FULL REPEAL of DOMA?

At the end of the day if you are judging Obama because of McClurkin who is worse?

[ruggerson]

22. She's supporting the repeal of DADT, a policy you apparently don't understand

and the part of DOMA which will not incite Republicans into pushing for a constitutional amendment. She has said she supports doing things which realistically can get done. That doesn't mean over time she won't push even further when the consensus is there to do it.

[MADem]

53. Which is why the entire thread is bullshit. Go reread the OP. What was the goal of it?

The goal was to trash Bill Clinton, as though he were the candidate.

The straw man came from YOUR team, there, Bright Eyes. And now you're CRYING at the comparison? That's pretty rich!

[Maven]

4. Bill Clinton isn't running.

How do you feel about Caldwell?

[Meldread]

26. No, Bill isn't running, but neither is McClurkin.

So I fail to understand the point of view of the other side. Why is Obama enduring endless amounts of flack for McClurkin when Hillary has Bill out there every single day? As I said in the original post and in another above, McClurkin is a mentally and emotionally fucked up hack who sings songs. Bill Clinton will play a role in Hillary's White House, and he plays a prominent roll in her campaign. She has done nothing to denounce or distance herself from his comments. She is also the only major candidate who has refused to repeal DOMA in its entirety.

There is a very clear double standard.

[Maven]

28. Why do you keep going back to McClurkin?

Do you want to address Caldwell, who will campaign for Obama while running an "ex-gay" ministry?

[MADem]

55. Gee, isn't he also Georgie Bush's pastor/spiritual advisor? I do believe he is! nt

[maddiejoan]

50. Not at all

It's like comparing being against affirmative action with lynching.

[MADem]

54. If he's not running, why did YOU bring him up? And then CRY when people mention it?

You made this bed of yours with dirty sheets, and now you're whining because you have to lie in it?

:rofl:

[ruggerson]

5. You've also written:

"Bill Clinton made a campaign promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military. He attempted to do it, and met with opposition. So a compromise was crafted - Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Bill Clinton could have continued fighting for us. He did not NEED the Congress, because he could have done it through Executive Order. That is how racial segregation ended in the military, through executive order by Harry Truman."

Which, as pointed out to you, is factually incorrect. And yet, you've never acknowledged that.

[Maven]

6. Perhaps you should also see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4136098

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

8. You convinced me, there's no way I'm voting for Bill this year

Hillary, however, isn't his Siamese twin. They are two separate people. Hillary hasn't had any anti-gay activists emcee her events, nor would she ever. She's a woman and that alone makes her more trustworthy on gay issues, women are tons more gay-friendly than straight men.

[angie_love]

10. .

Yeah but she married the guy and stayed with him didn't she? says alot about her.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

19. Well his record isn't 100% negative on gay issues

Made a lot of appointments of openly-gay people, that was unprecedented. Bill was the first president to say anything nice about gay people, he made numerous pro-gay comments in interviews. And this was a completely different time, today young people poll in favor of gay marriage. That certainly wasn't the case in the 90s, not even close. Clinton's presidency was the first pro-gay baby steps, the Dem elected this year will be able to take it much further.

[angie_love]

12. LOL

"She's a woman and that alone makes her more trustworthy on gay issues, women are tons more gay-friendly than straight men." LOLOLOLOLOL With logic like this....

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

20. Dear, all the front-runners have very similar stands on gay rights

Being female is one of the few ways she differs from Obama and Edwards. And polls do show that women are more liberal on gay rights, so it is logical to assume that Hillary is likely to be more gay-friendly, is it not?

[HughMoran]

25. !

:rofl:

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

27. .

Self-delete, misinterpreted the post I was responding to.

[HughMoran]

29. I thought it was hilarious - Bill isn't running - I agree

Relax, some of us just enjoy the honesty of some posters. I thought your declarative statement was hilarious! :D

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

30. Sorry

You tend to take a lot of abuse posting on this topic, I always have my guard up.

[HughMoran]

33. No problem

I figured you simply misunderstood - welcome to DU BTW :pals:

[Barack_America]

13. This is such a well-articulated, thoughtful argument. I'm so sorry it seems...

many are unwilling to discuss it.

FWIW, I'll discuss it, to the best of my limited ability.

[ruggerson]

16. Meldread, was this a hit and run? Why don't you respond to anyone?

[sandnsea]

17. Then there's Short & Matthews

Hillary's SC Co-chairs who voted to put discrimination in the SC Constitution; and Jackson, a paid adviser, who proclaimed his views on the floor of the SC Senate:

"Now we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else. My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to.."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Gay_rights_in_SC_contd.html

[Barack_America]

23. Can somebody please explain Hillary's DOMA position?

She says that her stance for a partial-repeal is to protect gay and lesbian rights.

Is there truth to that or is it total BS?

I can't get anyone to answer this question and I am really, truly, honestly curious.

[ruggerson]

31. DOMA is in two parts

one part addresses contracts between the states - it allows states to NOT recognize same sex marriages peformed in other states. It is designed to try to circumvent the "full faith and credit" clause in the constitution that many rightwinger feared would force states to recognize same sex marriage.

the other part says that any law in any state that legalizes same sex couples (marriages, civil unions, whatever) shall NOT be recognized by the federal government. That means that although couple are completely legally married in Mass., they are not recognized as married by the federal government. They receive none of the 400+ rights and privileges afforded heterosexual married couples.

Clinton wants to tackle repeal of the second part first so that gay married couples and those in states with civil unions will receive full federal recognition.

She wants to tackle the other part when there is a consensus to do so, and it won't push Republicans into moving for a constitutional amendment.

Hope that helps.

[Barack_America]

34. Thanks a lot. One additional question...

If I'm not asking too much.

Repealing the non-recognition by the federal government, that would also pave the way for partners of those employed by the federal government to receive benefits right? Or has this already been sorted out and I just missed it?

[ruggerson]

35. Yes

and once that part of DOMA is repealed, I believe that can be done with an executive order. But don't hold me to it.

[Meldread]

36. It's a claim that it's more 'realistic'.

She is basically claiming that by not repealing all of DOMA it will prevent the Republican's from pushing for a Constitutional Amendment. The flaw in her logic is the fact that the Democratic Party controls Congress and should maintain control of Congress for the foreseeable future. Therefore, getting said Constitutional Amendment out to be voted on won't happen - or at least should not happen.

I see things like this:

I don't think the Clinton's are anti-gay. I don't think Obama is anti-gay. I think they both pander to anti-gay people because realistically you need their votes to win. However, there comes a point in time when pandering goes too far and you become a sell out. Obama has yet to prove himself a sell out, whereas I have every reason to believe that Hillary and Bill will sell LGBT people out.

I don't have a problem with Hillary taking money from anti-gay preachers. I don't have a problem with Obama doing it, either. If they can be persuaded to vote Democratic - all the better. That keeps the Republican's out of office at least, which should protect LGBT people at least in theory. It is highly unlikely a Democratic Candidate will bring up anti-gay marriage amendments. I don't lose sight of what is important - winning and preventing the other side (which is rabidly anti-gay) from winning.

What I do not understand is why Obama is hammered again and again, while Hillary and Bill are given a free pass. No one has held Bill's feet to the fire for his comments.

However, more to your comment regarding DOMA. Hillary wants to leave in the part that ensures that different states will not recognize gay marriage from another state. This prevents LGBT people from pushing for gay marriage in one state, winning, then going to another and demanding that their marriage be recognized. The Republicans know this is how gay marriage will be passed in the United States, so that is why they are hell bent on their Constitutional Amendment.

So Hillary's argument is basically, 'Well, you may never get gay marriage for another 25-30 years, but at least you won't have to battle the Constitution. The country might be progressive enough... some day...'

[Barack_America]

40. Thank you very much... I have another question...

If this part of DOMA is repealed, does it prevent individual states from passing their own legislation to deny the recognition of gay marriage?

Or to rephrase, is the current law more of an umbrella that negated the necessity for each state to pass their own legislation?


Also, do you think it is possible for this section to be repealed without us ending up with a Constitutional Amendment? And, if not, does the fact that both Obama and Edwards are proposing a full repeal suggest pandering on their part?

Thanks again for your great, thoughtful posts.

[Meldread]

44. A few things...

First a couple of things.

1. DOMA was put into place to avoid a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage.

2. Most states have followed suit by passing their own version of DOMA, and have even taken it a step further by changing their state Constitutions to ban gay marriage.

If DOMA is fully repealed what would happen is something like this:

* Gay Marriage will happen in some state, somewhere. California nearly passed gay marriage into law through its legislature not long ago. In fact, they did. The only problem they had was Arnold would not sign it, despite the fact that he said he would.

* If Gay Marriage became legal in one state, gays could go to that state, go back to their home state, and when that state refuses to recognize their marriage - they file a lawsuit.

* That lawsuit will eventually work its way up the court system, and if it is a state without a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage there is a very high likelihood that state will be forced to recognize the marriage.

* However, if the state has a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage then it will go off to the Supreme Court. Once there, since there is no Constitutional Ban in the Federal Constitution, the Supreme Court will be forced into a ruling - and there is a likelihood that they could rule in favor of gay marriage.

* If that happens, then ALL states, regardless of what their Constitution says will be forced to recognize gay marriage, therefore making gay marriage legal in all states across the country.

Now, the kicker here is the fact that it is basically a toss of the dice. Had we won in 2004 and appointed the two new justices, we might even have gay marriage by now. It is somewhat unclear how either of the two new justices will rule.

However, at the same time it is the ONLY way we will see gay marriage in the United States unless we wait another 30 to 40 years or so when most boomers are dead or dying off. The best we can hope for in the interim is Civil Unions.

Historically, Civil Rights are almost always won through the Courts and not the legislature. That is what the Court exists for and it is one of the reasons Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. It means they do not have to pander to the masses.

[Barack_America]

46. Thanks again. I was unaware that so many states had passed their own laws...

I am, of course, familiar with Michigan :grr:

So I guess it goes without saying that if a Republican wins this year and several Justices retire, as predicted, legalization of gay marriage gets pushed back even further.

By the way, I found an interesting (read: scary) site that describes how the fundies feel about Barack's positions regarding gay rights. Let's just say that if people here think he's down with the Christians...they're wrong.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/126050.aspx

Obama's quote in that article is really interesting as well. If definitely shows the he has seriously contemplated how to reconcile identifying as a Christian with also supporting gay and lesbian rights. Personally, I think that would be a good quality in a president. Let's face it, if gay marriage is going to be supported in this country, that sort of recognition is going to have to happen on a much larger scale.

(however, it should be noted that the quote is at least 3 years old)

[ruggerson]

56. Hate to tell you this Meldread

Same sex marriage is ALREADY legal in one state. Massachusetts. The federal DOMA does not need to be repealed in order for a state to legalize same sex marriage.

You are correct insofar that a married couple in Mass could move to another state and challenge DOMA in court.

[okasha]

57. You write

"Gay Marriage will happen in some state, somewhere. California nearly passed gay marriage into law through its legislature not long ago. In fact, they did. The only problem they had was Arnold would not sign it, despite the fact that he said he would.

* If Gay Marriage became legal in one state, gays could go to that state, go back to their home state, and when that state refuses to recognize their marriage - they file a lawsuit."

How is it that a gay man who's presenting himself as current on the issues doesn't know same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachussetts?

[maddiejoan]

51. Do you not get that this "ex-gay" movement

is exponentially more dangerous than whether or not we have civil unions or marriages?

[CyberPieHole]

32. OBAMA is the WORST for pandering to gay~hating Donny McClurkin...

Obama gave McClurkin the job of emceeing his event and gave him the platform on which to spew his anti~gay hatred~~~just so he can get the votes from bigoted bible thumpers.


And, by the way...Bill Clinton is NOT RUNNING...HILLARY CLINTON IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

[Meldread]

39. McClurkin isn't running for President, either.

So I fail to see your point. Are you blatantly ignoring the hypocrisy in your post or are you blind too it?

McClurkin is a mentally ill individual who sings songs, and otherwise has no affiliation or power within the Obama Campaign. Bill Clinton is a former United States President who has advised and publicly scolded another former Democratic Presidential Candidate for not supporting anti-gay marriage amendments. He plays a prominent roll in Hillary's campaign. He will play a prominent roll in her White House.

She has done nothing to distance herself from his comments. She has said nothing to say that she feels differently. She has not proven that she will do differently if the situation presents itself. Look what happened last time the Clinton's were under pressure. What if Hillary Clinton becomes President, and then like Bill she causes us to lose control of Congress? Republicans will push the anti-gay issues. She will be forced to make a stand. Will she cave in, and take the advise of her top advisor? What will she do? The fact of the matter is - we don't know what she will do. However, we do know what her top advisor will likely encourage her to do.

[Barack_America]

37. I'm sorry, but isn't saying "Bill isn't running" a little bit dismissive?

Obviously he plays a very large role in the campaign and would play a role in Hillary's presidency as well. If he is willing to, as it was said, "throw gays under the bus", wouldn't his influence be a concern?

I mean, for those of you who are so inclined, I don't see why it would be a problem to say that, "yeah, maybe Bill is a concern, but I'm still voting for Hillary".

Just a thought. I'll go duck and cover.

[NMMNG]

38. It's not as obvious as you think

Don't get me wrong. I very much want equal marriage rights. I want GLBT people to be able to serve openly in the military.


But if I had to give both of them up I'd do it in a heartbeat to rid the world of the psycho-spiritual terrorists who call themselves the Ex-Gay movement. They cause often irreparable emotional, psychological, spiritual and even physical harm to LGBT people of all ages. What's worse, they do it under the guise of "love", religion, "therapy" and other such bull. What they do is far worse than anybody who simply "doesn't approve of gay marriage" or "doesn't approve of gays in the military". They are trying to exterminate us.


Read up on the hideous abuse they perpetrate on vulnerable people.

http://www.religiousleft.us/2007/12/ex-gay-movement-religious-hate.html
http://www.beyondexgay.com/
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/



Anybody who courts the "ex-gays" and their hideous brood will never, ever, ever get my support. They can go screw themselves sideways .

[Meldread]

42. I agree.

The ex-gay movement is inherently evil to the core. There is no doubt about that.

In an odd way, I pity McClurkin as a human being. He is obviously a gay man who has been traumatized by the religious right. He's been poisoned, and... really, at this point he's emotionally and mentally fucked up. He's likely to spend the rest of his life living in fear and self-loathing. He probably wakes up every morning trying to pray the gay away, while at the same time hating himself for still being gay, and being afraid that someone else will find out. He is desperate to please his tormentors. He is going to die a lonely and broken human being, never having had the chance to live up to his full potential, be free and get the chance to be himself. He is broken - mentally and emotionally. And the same is true for most if not all so-called "ex-gays".

When I look at those who claim to be ex-gay that is what I see. I see a tormented brother / sister, and really - I feel pity. I can't really bring myself to hate someone who is ultimately slowly destroying themselves day by day, little by little. I don't need to hate them - I am sure they hate themselves more than enough for being who and what they are.

I also agree that having McClurkin appear at that event was inexcusable. I'm not even trying to defend it. What I am saying is this -

We have two likely individuals who are going to win the nomination. On the one hand we have Hillary and on the other we have Obama.

If we are honest, we all know they are going to pander to the anti-gay crowd. The Black Community is by and large very anti-gay, sadly. It was actually a fear I had about Obama, that he would feel more loyalty to them than to us. I can't really say if that will come to pass or not.

What I do know is that Hillary and Obama are virtually identical when it comes to gay rights. We aren't going to see gay marriage under them. Neither are likely to put our needs on the table. So the question comes down to - who is most likely to buckle under pressure? In my heart, I feel that the answer to that question is the Clinton's. I truly and sincerely feel that if they had to stand up for us they would fight back only to the point where it would not damage them politically. If they saw that their own skins could be on the line with the voting public, they would abandon us. I truly, honestly and sincerely feel that.

I cannot say with certainty that Obama would not do the same, but at the same time I also truly and honestly feel that he can at the very least not be worse than the Clinton's.

Therefore, it really comes to a draw on gay issues. So I have to look past that and ask - who is most likely to benefit our community over all?

I feel that person is Obama. The reason I feel that way is because I think he has the best chances of winning in November, but not only that I feel he has the best chances of bringing in more people over to the Democratic Side. We may not like those people, we may not agree with them on every issue - but at the end of the day we only need their votes. It's the people in power that matter.

I believe that Obama can do for the Democratic Party what Reagan did for the Republican's. Furthermore, I believe that if he became President it will drive a nail into the Republican coffin as the Reagan coalition dies. We will move forward with a permanent Democratic Majority for the foreseeable future.

Additionally, as LGBT issues are pushed by the base of the Democratic Party, we will have a voice. If Hillary wins she brings back the DLC who does not bother to hide the fact that they despise us - each and every one of us. Even those who support Hillary here on this forum, right now, the DLC would take their vote and then promptly tell them to shut up when it comes time to govern. They do not want us playing a part in the Democratic Party.

I very much see this a battle of the DNC vs the DLC, and it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Even though Obama is a centrist candidate, I believe that if he is elected he will inadvertently begin reversing the trend of the country moving toward the right. We will begin to move toward the center left. This is a good thing for LGBT people because it means that we are one step closer toward being accepted and having what we most desire.

In the end... I suppose you could say I support Obama, not because I particularly believe in his cause, but I find him useful to our ultimate goal. Whereas, I think Hillary will ultimately undermine what we hope to achieve - moving this country further to the left.

[NMMNG]

43. Obama has shown that he'll buckle every time

Whenever it is a choice of the LGBT community vs. his own needs (or the needs/desires of the religious and/or black community) we'll get shit on. Each and every time. No matter what. That's what this whole McClurkin/Kirbyjon Caldwell/etc. mess is all about. That's why he's got his lips so firmly planted to the backsides of so many "ex-gays" and won't eject them no matter what. That's why he pays lip-service to us and our rights yet continues to use anti-gay codespeak like "sin" when talking about us to his precious evangelicals.

He needs the votes. He needs the support of the black community. He needs his homophobes. He's made it obvious that he doesn't need the LGBTs. We're expendable.

[Meldread]

45. Yes, but it's silly to believe that Hillary doesn't want their votes either.

If Hillary was given the option: To accept or reject the ex-gay vote, which do you think she'd choose? No politician - and it's a mistake to think that any of them are not just that - would turn away a vote. Especially in this campaign. Bill Clinton has already said he plans to go from house to house and from church to church in South Carolina.

I encourage you and everyone else to watch him closely. Watch what Churches he goes too. Do their preachers support the anti-gay, ex-gay movements? I am willing to bet a sizeable chunk do.

It is silly to believe that Hillary will not pander to them any less than Obama would. They are fighting for votes. It's just a sad fact.

I would like nothing more than to throw the anti-gay, ex-gay blacks under the bus, run over them, put the bus in reverse and run over them again. However, we are silly to think that either campaign is going to view things differently.

We very might be thrown under the bus no matter what - that is a possibility. However, as I said in my previous post I am looking to who benefits our over all goals more and in the end - the answer is clearly Obama. It is my biggest fear that Hillary will win the Presidency, and that her presence may be just enough to hold the old Reagan coalition together. In so doing, we could lose the House, the Senate or both - and then where will we be? We'll be looking at anti-gay amendments out the ass all over again. It would be a nightmare, and Hillary will either be forced to compromise or become a lame duck President.

I do not believe Obama will suffer the same problem, and what is more - I believe his victory will seal the fate of the Reagan Coalition, and the Republican Party may spend the next decade OR MORE trying to regain their lost power. That is insanely important. It could spell the end of the theocratic wing of the Republican Party, and that is HUGE for LGBT people and women. It means that they will no longer be forced to pander to the ultra anti-gay crowd and the anti-abortion crowd.

[NMMNG]

47. Obama's faults go far beyond his failures to the LGBT community

Though that's a significant reason I won't support him.

Read up on him. There are reams of information.

[dkf]

41. I guess the question is, would Hillary take Bill's advice to throw

gays under the bus?

Since we already know where he stands from the advice he has given...

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

48. She's not Tammy Wynette standin' by her man and baking cookies

Remember the flack she got for that quote? Had to do photo ops with Wynette and baking cookies, to show she really didn't mean it or something. But she did mean it, she showed the feminist fire in her belly. She's not going to be Bill's sock-puppet, she'll ignore his advice whenever she feels like it. And with the strong support she has in the gay community, it's highly unlikely she'd jeopardize that. She's not going to push for gay marriage, big deal, that's a given in this political climate. None of the other front-runners are pro gay-marriage either.

[dkf]

49. Oh, it wouldn't be because she's standing by her man,

it would be because that is the advice of her political strategist. Like how Bush does stuff that Rove strategizes. And we all know Rove drove domestic policy.