Barack Obama and Rick Santorum... the only two politicians to ever refuse an interview with the PGN

[Clintonista2]

http://wonkette.com/376296/philadelphias-gay-people-hate-barack-obama

Here's Segal, the King of Gay Newspapers:

We don't put ads on our front page, so we didn't lose any money by doing so. Although, no publisher wants a blank space in their paper! Or as we call it, you know, creative white space! We wanted to make it clear from the very start that we had done our research. And I think what is shocking is that the campaign has not been able to refute our facts. It has been 1,522 days since he's spoken to local gay press <...> during a break in the meeting, former publishers and editors were sitting around the table, and half of them were Obama supporters. And we all started discussing the fact that practically every one of them has gone after Obama for an interview — and they've all gotten the runaround!

==snip==

I've been doing this for 31 years. There is nobody in the gay press that has been doing it as long as I have. And PGN has a reputation for doing interviews with politicians — including people like Frank Rizzo! We've interviewed everyone, with the exception of the one who refused: Senator Santorum. Which I find kind of comical. Because I don't want to put Senator Obama on the same level as Santorum! I find that offensive.

more at the link...

[Cant trust em]

1. It's not enough to sway my support, but this is disappointing. NT

[YEM]

2. But...but...he's the savior. "err.umm...er...ah" PGN didn't miss much

[AndyA]

3. All are created equal, eh, Barack?

Oh...wait...not gays, though. They just need to pray more so they can be cured.

Right. This is the man American needs for President? One bigot after another, I guess. Yeah, I can see that real change comin' now... :eyes:

[Fearless]

4. Oh not this stupidity again...

He's trying to gain an advantage over HRC by going after the Independant vote and taking the middle road is the best way to do it. He has mentioned numerous times in many speeches his belief in equal rights for GLBTQ people. More than HRC who doesn't support the total removal of DOMA and the DADT. Get over it. If this were four years ago it wouldn't even have been an issue. Did he not appear in the GLBTQ debate? Did he not answer questions there? Get over it.

Flames not appreciated.

[Clintonista2]

5. Ok, so Obama has to snub us in order to win?

I guess his "new breed" of politics is nothing but a new name.

[Fearless]

7. By snub you mean remove DOMA and DADT?

By snub you mean being for exactly the same things as HRC otherwise? By snub you mean publically supporting civil unions (which I disagree with regardless, seperate but --not-- equal, et al.)? By snub do you mean participate in the first ever GLBTQ debate?

Or is it by snub do you mean not mentioning GLBTW issues in every campaign stump? Because if it's that, you've got to check your priorities at the door. He's elected to govern an entire nation. That's a nation of many problems, not the least of which is GLBTQ issues, but not the most of which either.

I am gay and I do believe in equality for all, but there isn't an equality for all candidate. You have one who is against a contitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (McCain). One who is pro civil unions but against fully removing DOMA or removing DADT (HRC). And you have one who is pro civil unions and for fully removing DOMA and DADT (Obama). I would've liked to vote for Kucinich, but its not going to happen and I'm not going to throw my vote away by voting for him anyways because then McCain has a better chance of winning and none of us want that.

[Clintonista2]

9. No, by snub I mean refuse to talk to gay people

Hillary made the time, Obama + Mcclurkin = typical.

[Fearless]

11. So has Obama refused to talk to a gay person? Or just this particular organization?

I'm positive that he's answered questions for GLBTQ people before, even after that debate aforementioned.

Why is it that you think that just because people happen to be GLBTQ means that this will be the biggest concern during the election season? It's not going to be. We have a war that's tearing this country apart. We have an economic crisis that's subverting the middle class. We have a president that in any other time would've been tried for war crimes months ago.

Not mentioning GLBTQ issues every five seconds is not a slight to our movement, it's a recognition that politics and the public at large are impacted by greater issues as a whole and that those issues will define the next president, not GLBTQ rights, even if great strides are made as I hope they are.

Alternatively, HRC has not mentioned GLBTQ rights as a major campaign issue either. Why? I haven't a clue. But I bet it has something to do with not getting crucified by McCain and the radical right during the GE. We want to demotivate the right to voting in the GE. We don't want them to have a rallying point. If you want it done now, the best way to get GLBTQ equality is to slip it in beneath the radar making those happy who desire (justifiably so) such rights and making it possible for those who don't want it to ignore it in favor of other issues. If you do want it to be a loud statement, we'll all have to wait at least another decade for popular opinion of GLBTQ rights to surpass the cloture and fillabuster percentage marks. We would need to wait for it to be possible nationally for legislatures to take a stand in favor of GLBTQ rights and still be reelected. This is a long way off in some places. And since I want it now, I'd rather be quiet about it.

NTF

[Clintonista2]

14. Civil rights is America's biggest issue

Sorry if you and your candidate can't see that.

[Fearless]

16. I hate to disappoint you... but that's just your opinion...

And the opinions of others wins out in politics. It's democracy, majority rule.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/312372/most_important_voting_issues_for_2008.html
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/h08_pomr122007pkg.cfm

That's my proof. It's all I've got.

[Lyric]

111. The majority ruled back before civil rights were available to racial minorites too.

I assure you, that didn't make it right. If two hundred million people believe something that's wrong, it's STILL wrong. The stance of the majority might determine the agenda, but it DOESN'T confer validity or truth. And for the record--NO, majority does NOT always rule in America. We're not a democracy, we are a democratic republic that is governed by a Constitution, and Constitutional rights trump the majority's opinion every time. Please don't toss out that ridiculous old "nanny nanny boo boo" chestnut about "majority rule" here; it's extremely insulting, considering that the right-wing uses that logic to deny us rights on a regular basis.

The right to equality is not just a civil right, it's a constitutional right--14th Amendment, all people shall be equal before the law. Violations of the constitution are FAR more dangerous than any other matter, because they threaten the very foundation that our society stands on. If we allow the government to violate the constitution in small ways because other things are "more important", it leads to the kind of disrespect for and disregard of the constitution that is dangerous to the liberties of every American citizen. If every American held the constitution as sacred as it needs to be held, do you think we'd be suffering under the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act right now? Do you think the NSA would have dared to spy on citizens if the people running it honestly believed that American citizens would take action to remove those people from power if and when we found out? We shrug off the importance of the constitution at our own peril.

If the American people don't consider violations of the constitution to be "priorities", then the American people are blind and ignorant, and we should be trying to educate them--not appeasing their ignorance in order to keep from "making waves".

[MNBrewer]

74. Snub?

Hillary doesn't even say the word "gay". It's nowhere to be found on her campaign website. It's not on her list of issues. It's not even on her RADAR!!

At least we get a plug on Obama's website.

[bigscott]

84. is that all you need?

I prefer a candidate who supports equal rights - like the right to marry

none do, I know - but the longer the GLBT community settles for being "mentioned" on a candidates web page the longer we will go without equal rights

peace

[MNBrewer]

90. Of course not

But I'd prefer a candidate that will mention us in polite company vs a candidate that pretends we don't exist. Neither candidate, as I've said before, is particularly terrific from an EQUAL-rights-for-homosexuals perspective.

[gaspee]

15. Get over it

Nice. Typical. Exactly the problem.

Gonna be funny when 1/2 the queer electorate sits out the election because Obama's a bigot.

Good luck winning the GE without us queers who need to get over it.

[Fearless]

17. You will get over it or you'll elect McCain.

[Clintonista2]

20. So be it.

If Obama does not do more to embrace the GLBT community, then the GLBT community needs to sit out the election.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clintonista2]

23. I smelled your scent the minute you stepped in this thread

If Obama does not do more to embrace the GLBT community, then the GLBT community needs to sit out the election.

[Tyo]

32. So now you're a troll if you don't fall at Obama's feet?

If Obama wins God save us from his nasty army of 21st Century Red Guards. I'd probably manage to get along with Obama okay. It's his supporters that I worry about.

Thanks for the original post. When the Obama folks start accusing you of being a troll then you know you've scored.

[Fearless]

35. As I said before I was a Kucinich supporter, close but no cigar.

[Fearless]

36. And if McCain wins? Then what? Did we sit out when Reagan won?

How about when Bush won? Did we sit out then?

[Clintonista2]

59. If Mccain wins

Then GLBT policy won't be any different than if Obama wins. Well, Mccain at least will be honest about his disgust for gay people, with Obama he won't be open about it.

[Fearless]

60. DADT AND DOMA WILL STILL EXIST! Do you not listen!

[MNBrewer]

73. What's Clinton gonna change?

Nothing.

[mitchtv]

31. what nerve

You darn Gaye better GTF to the back of the GD bus and STFU in the presence of an official Obamanable. Obama who refuse to take a picture with Gavin Newsom when he showed up for a fundraiser for him. All bow Down

[Fearless]

37. Just because we have differing opinions doesn't give you the right to ask me to leave.

[mitchtv]

63. I'm sorry if that's what you interperted

that'll teach me to use acronyms and also not check my horrendus typing. No dear, I didn't ask you to leave it was an attempt at sarcasm, or irony ,or something. We are all in this together

[Fearless]

76. Wow I guess...

A little :sarcasm: icon goes a long way.

Cheers,
NTF

[MNBrewer]

75. If the DEMOCRATS don't embrace the GLBT community

Then we need to stop voting for Democrats, or help pick better Democrats.

[Fearless]

79. We would never stop voting Democratic

until their views became more hurtful than Reps. I don't think that'll every happen. And, we don't have enough clout to start a new party.

[MNBrewer]

91. Speak for yourself

I'm tired of voting for the Dem because I fear the Republican will be worse. Democrats COULD stand up for us, but make the choice not to, at least if they do, it's tepidly.

[sui generis]

113. I think McCain has been more straightforward

on gay issues.

Again - why should we vote for someone who does not vote for us? Get over it. If you can't take the fact that some people would rather not vote for ANY candidate who takes us for granted, then YOU need to take a swallow of your own medicine.

Get over it; leave the rest of us alone. We've done our time in the political system. I don't care about clean air, wars, gas cost, groceries, none of that. My personal income, property assignments, heirs, last will, any medical care I might ever need, and legal documents out the ass take care of all that, so the only issue I HAVE to care about is the object of all those documents: my family.

If Barack can't speak to that meaningfully, then I have no use for him, and he does not need my vote.

And no, the opposite of not voting for Barack is NOT: voting for McCain instead. Don't even go there.

[MuseRider]

25. AND many of your allies.

There is not a nose clip big enough.

[sui generis]

112. "get over it"

that's the kind of talk that wins hearts and minds every time in the gay community.

In fact we have been "getting over it" with every single elected candidate. A response and a meaningful response are not the same thing. Telling us that we're not good enough to qualify for the same marital and property rights as everyone else unless we call it something else is dishonest, is NOT leadership and deserves contempt.

We're not asking anyone for permission, and I'm sure as hell not waiting for my states' "rights" to catch up in my lifetime.

When they figure that out, then we'll all be talking the same language. Until then, Hackett spoke the truth, and Feingold spoke the truth, the common truth of human and civil rights. Barack Obama does not speak any such truths on our behalf.

Sui

[madinmaryland]

6. Please! Those two names do not belong in the same sentence.

There should be absolutely no comparison between the two men.

[kdpeters]

8. Take it back to GD:P please

[Clintonista2]

12. Sorry, it's about gay issues

Stop believing yourself to be a mod please.

[Fearless]

10. So did Bush interview with them? How about Kennedy? Is he a bad person too?

[Clintonista2]

18. Were Bush and Kennedy invited for an interview?

Didn't think so. And btw it's sad that you have to use Bush as an example for Obama to follow.

[Fearless]

21. Exactly, but he's invited to dozens of interviews. It's his AIDES that choose for him usually.

[Clintonista2]

24. Then he needs new, non-homophobic aides.

[Fearless]

38. Because they didn't accept the invitation does not make them homophobic

Aides look to key issues to maximize the impact that a candidate will have and calculate it versus the amount of time the appearance will take, how many people will be there, the "superdelegate" support garnered, future roles, etc. etc. Clearly what had happened, like it did for ALL the major candidates, is that their advisors and aides determined that they should go after other issues that based on polls (like those I linked above) which showed that GLBTQ issues were not in the top couple of issues concerning the electorate at large. I'm sorry this is so. Nothing would make me happier than a candidate committed to equal rights first and foremost. But I am realistic; no such candidate exists. Therefore I have to choose based on other issues.

[dsc]

47. Hillary gave interviews to gay publications in

Ohio, PA, Wisconsin, Texas, and several other states. It is a bald faced lie to say that all the candidates did what Obama did.

[Fearless]

49. He participated in the GLBTQ debate. What more do you want?

A single interview is going to sway you?

[dsc]

52. well gee I am so glad he deigned to participate in the debate

I will kiss his ass and spread rose petals upon his path. I am unworthy of such attention. It isn't like we are one of the most loyal constituencies of the party (over 70% dem in the last four elections), it isn't like we give tons of money to the party, it isn't like we provide footsoldiers for our elections, no wait, it is like that.

[Fearless]

53. And we'll continue to do so... he has to go after those who may not.

We have a vested interest in remaining in the Democratic Party as we cannot make a successful party of our own. (Although... nevermind.) We are stuck with them and come hell or high water, so long as Dems are fairer than Reps, we're still going to vote for them en masse. It's not right... but it's true.

[mitchtv]

65. Sorry, not this time

If he could hide his disdain, just a little, I heard that BS about DADT he was spouting abot litmus tests and all. what a f'n weasel

[Fearless]

82. Yes, removing DADT and DOMA, and supporting as full a package

as ANY candidate surely means, regardless of what you speculate he personally believes, that he will be a detriment to this nation's GLBTQ community. That makes so much sense. :sarcasm:

[gaspee]

13. But Obama loves gay people!

Yeah, right.

He has a personal problem with us queers and those of us paying attention know it.

He will never get my vote.

Well, actually, there is one way.

Admit he has a problem with us and promise to try to get over it.

It would be about the only way I'd ever vote for the guy.

[Fearless]

19. McCain?

[Tyo]

26. Face the facts. We don't matter much

In the eyes of our straight friends our fight for equality has the same relationship to human rights as Whole Foods has to groceries. We are not an essential component, we are a luxury.

[MuseRider]

27. It never ceases to amaze me

how you are told just that, that you do not matter but you have to vote for so and so because...well just because. In what freaking world would that kind of logic work?

[Fearless]

39. You're right...

In the eyes of mainstream America we don't mean much. This is what has to change before we will have the opportunity to elect a candidate that openly and legally supports us. We cannot assume that the world will change itself. Time will not correct this problem. The fact is that we are at best count 10% (give or take) of the population. 1 in 10- 2 in 20. More than 9 in 10 are feeling the squeeze at the pump and at the supermarket. More than 3 in 10 Amerians, and about 5 in 10 voters are seniors. Politicians are of course going to go after the biggest groups amongst their constituents first. It just makes good political sense. We have to mean something to the eyes of mainstream America to have a voice, to have a say in our future.

[bigscott]

85. are there not

GLBT that feel the squeeze at the pump?
GLBT that are seniors?
GLBT that have day-to-day issues we deal with?

Why should we also have to put up with a bigot that relegates us to second-class citizenship?

I know your response already: McCain???

well at least we know wheere he stands and we can be prepared - he wont lie to us and then fuck us over, we KNOW they both hate us, McCain at least admits it

[Tyo]

88. We're not a "group"

We are Americans of all backgrounds, races, religions (or lack thereof), income levels and political persuasions who are denied basic Constitutional rights that are taken for granted by the rest of our fellow citizens.

We are not a voting block or special interest group for some politico to manipulate and factor into his or her election calculations. We are second class citizens in our own country and i'm fucking sick of it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

64. Yup, that about nails it n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

28. After the McClurkin events

Obama should have acted like an adult and apologized and promised no more minority baiting would come from his campaign. He did not, and that move has cost him votes. Large concentrations of votes were lost in California and NY, as well as in NV. It seems like a good question to ask how many delegates the Senator might have right now if he had not thrown away so many voters on the alter of Evangelicalism. The Obama supporters want the election over so badly, they need to grasp the fact that it would be- were it not for McClurkin.

[Tyo]

29. But don't you understand?

It's all our fault. If we hadn't made such a stink about his hanging with ex-gays and Fundie homophobes there never would have been a problem. If Obama doesn't take the nomination it'll be because we couldn't just shut the f*ck up for the good of the party.:sarcasm:

[Bluenorthwest]

34. I know that is what they try to sell

But I won't be buying it. The fault will lie with an inexperienced and arrogant politician, and a browbeaten and desperate Party that did not know how to win an election. The whole McClurkin debacle was a picture of foolishness. There had been media covered furor over George W Bush using McClurkin at the GOP Convention in 2004, because of his bigoted views. What sort of soft brained Democrat would seek out a Republican anti-gay activist so vile that some Repulbicans were unhappy having him at their convention, and make him host and only speaker of a series of Presidential election events? It is no just the anti-gay stuff. Donnie was singing for Bush with teary eyes while good Democrats were being dragged away by the police for protesting the GOP. To hire him was stupid and insulting to everyone who tried to elect John Kerry while McClurkin did the Jesus dance for George and Cheney and Alberto.
Of course, at DNC Convention 2004, where Obama made his mark, inclusive Gospel superstar Patti LaBelle sang. Patti's a Democrat and not a bigot. And an actual star.
In a campaign filled with pandering and rotten tactics, these events started the tone, set the pace, and went so far as to target innocent Democratic voters, not the rival candidates, nor the GOP. Donnie loves the GOP. A minority was targeted. And that is just wrong.
I've got a ballot in my hands right now, too.

[queerart]

44. You Just Summed It All Up Beautifully........

Bravo, and Thanks!

[Ian David]

30. Hillary Clinton prays with Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback as part of "The Family."

Sen. Clinton's Own Religious Cult Includes Brownback, Santorum
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-dantoni/sen-clintons-own-religi_b_93372.html

[Creideiki]

40. Ian, that's wonderful.

Now. Consider that Obama has a new spiritual advisor in the Rev. Meeks. He's got Nunn and Boren as advisors, also. We wouldn't have had DADT if it weren't for them (Nunn, in particular).

So we're approaching a real difficult question: Is the Democratic Party telling us that in fact they're no better than the Republicans and they just wish we'd shut up? (You know, after we vote for them...)

[Fearless]

42. Come help MA cede from the union.

We'll all be better off.

[mitchtv]

66. but but Kennedy and Frank won't

allow TG's in the group

[Creideiki]

67. The weather sucks there.

I like Denver and the mountains too much. Why should I get treated like crap because I don't like humidity and like interesting terrain?

[Fearless]

80. Awh the weather's not bad it's... interesting...

:rofl:

No seriously. We'll all go down the Cape and sit out on the beach. It'll be fun. Let the rest of the country deal with BushCo.

[Creideiki]

105. Come to Colorado.

I'll show you weather that's fantastic and interesting. :)

Want water? We'll hit the reservoir. Want mountains? They're here.

300+ days of sunshine a year.

Afternoon monsoonal storms.

4 seasons, each 3 months long.

[Ian David]

43. We can at least work with the Democrats and pull them to the left.

Insane McCain would put you in concentration camps if he could.

[Fearless]

45. He claims to be a Reagan footsoldier... everyone should remember that...

And Reagan and AIDS... everyone should remember that as well.

[Ian David]

46. Republicans want you to be dead. Democrats just want you to quit making such a fuss.

But at least Democrats will let you live long enough to convince them to treat you as equal citizens.

[Fearless]

50. And with that I say...

Kucinich 2016!

[Ian David]

51. Or Elizabeth Edwards 2016. n/t

[Fearless]

54. Let them run together.

[mitchtv]

68. I'm too old to be scared

Bush is as bad as it gets

[Fearless]

77. I bet that's what you said about Reagan?

And then look what we got.

[mitchtv]

94. Jeese, I'm not that old

In those days, I didn't feel too old for anything.(At least we had Jerry Brown in Sacto.) reagan was nothing compared to the drunken frat boy.

[mitchtv]

70. we have No where else to go?

Sorry, I am sick and tired of that game. My money will go to my local race individuals ;zip to the DP. I've had it.

[Creideiki]

69. Oh, I am.

Mark Udall and Diane Degette, my (to be) Senator and my Congresscritter.

However, let's look at it from David Sirota's point of view--don't support the one that would veto from the right. Can you say that you believe that, should Congress pass the legislation, Obama would sign an equal marriage bill? Would he sign universal health care? I believe Hillary would be ecstatic if either of those came. Wish I could say the same about Obama, but, well, he's been "triangulating" on all the gay civil rights issues.

[MNBrewer]

33. Who is Mark Segal?

A Clinton supporter

<http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2008/04/hillarys-latest.html>

[Clintonista2]

48. So you should only talk to people who support you?

[Fearless]

55. What about McClurkin then?

[Clintonista2]

56. McClurkin isn't a member of the press

And allowing a campaign event to be used as a platform for McClurkin to spew his hatred is typical of Obama's attitude towards the GLBT community.

[Fearless]

57. What hatred did he spew on Obama's time?

[Clintonista2]

58. Here you go:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — At Barack Obama’s gospel concert here last night, more than 2,000 black evangelicals were singing, waving their hands and cramming the aisles — most enthusiastically when Donnie McClurkin, the superstar black gospel singer, decried the criticism he has generated because of his views that homosexuality is a choice.

==snip==

He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.

“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/obamas-gospel-concert-tour/

[Fearless]

61. So he's repressed... pity him.

But you show me nothing that says he is trying to impose his will on others. He's free to believe anything he wants. And, if that doesn't help and in case you didn't notice... Obama hasn't used him again.

And if that still doesn't convince you... from your own article...

"His inclusion had drawn public criticism from gay activists who wanted Mr. Obama to cancel his appearance. Mr. Obama did not, but issued a statement a few days ago saying he strongly disagrees with Mr. McClurkin’s views and that he has tried to address what he called the homophobia among some black voters."

[MNBrewer]

72. I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth.

Read my post.

Think this Clinton supporter-publisher might not be exactly an unbiased source of information regarding the election? Think he might use his rag to promote his own agenda at the expense of the greater gay community? It wouldn't surprise me, given what I've seen in the gay media around the country.

[Ian David]

41. Meanwhile, Obama has been on Stephanie Miller, but Clinton has not. So THERE! :P n/t

[bigscott]

86. is that the same stephanie miller

that called Clinton a fucking whore?

wonder why she has not appeared on her show?:sarcasm:

[Ian David]

87. No, that was Randi Rhodes. Different person, different network. Geesh! n/t

[bigscott]

95. my mistake

thanks for the clarification -
Peace

[Ian David]

96. That's okay. Just so long as you realize Hillary is still a fucking whore.

:P

[bigscott]

97. I prefer not to go down that road

Seriously, if someone called Obama a "fucking pimp" it would not go over well. I just hope that Dems on both sides can put aside the animosity and hatred so we can defeat McAsshole in November

[Ian David]

98. Agreed! n/t

[davidinalameda]

62. so Obama and Santorum are the same

wow

didn't realize that

this guy REALLY needs to get over himself

[mitchtv]

71. well no,

Sanctorectum had a Gay top Aide

[xchrom]

78. obama will USE lgbtq folk as much or as little as he needs.

he used mcklurkin and the other four anti-gay gospels acts to introduce himself to sc -- a pivotal state.
and it worked.

he'll never apologise -- he will always have a bad case of the icks when it comes to lgbtiq people.

he did nothing to overturn doma in the state of illinois.
he has brought in sam nunn -- the architect of dadt -- close to his campaign.

he has managed to habitually talk about gay folk in the 'lover the sinner hate the sin' equation in churches -- call out the homophobia and the slap the shit out of lgbtiq folk all in one swipe.

will some lgbtiq people support him? -- sure -- that's usually the case with our folk.

others are very pissed -- that the dems and barack in specific have so blatantly and publicly treated us badly this time.

i'm guessing that there will be some serious soul-searching when it comes to the relationship dems have been building with lgbtiq people for some of us after this.

[Fearless]

81. Has he used you? How? To what extent?

[xchrom]

83. if you don't think using four anti-gay, anti-gay, african american

gospel acts as a way of using gay folk -- then i really can't explain it to you.
it was an horrific moment -- unless you choose to be blind.

if mcsame had done the same thing -- obamanation right here at DU would have burned him forever for that.

hard for me to separate the two right now.

[Fearless]

89. If he had been called to speak solely that then yes they would...

[mitchtv]

102. you forgot the Gay , White,reverend who gave an invocation

you think that didn't carry a subliminal message? I do.

[MNBrewer]

92. Isn't it TERRIBLE that Obama won't talk with the gay press

Like here, in his interview in Advocate magazine.

<http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2008/04/10/1&navpath=/channels/news/election/>

[jonmiller74]

93. Problems with PGN's stance

I am an ex-Philadelphian and I am well aware of Mark Segal and the PGN. There have been numerous things they have done right for the Philadelphia GLBT population but also many, many things they have done purely in the interest of self serving politicking including cozying up to Ed Rendell for Mark's personal gain. He also has a well deserved reputation for attacking and undermining those who question his self appointed leadership role for the community. Ask any political Gay Philadelphian about Outfest and Malcolm Lazin and about how he worked to undermine what Mark viewed as a rival. Obama may have refused to talk with them but perhaps Mark's reputation for being self-serving and manipulative has preceded him.

[mitchtv]

99. that's a big "may have"

and why pray tell did he refuse to have his photo taken with Mayor Gavin Newsom at an Obama fundraiser in SF.? Clinton was not afraid.

[Touchdown]

100. "refused"???? Proof?

All I've heard were allegations on this. Did Gavin himself actually say it? Obama? Or was it something else? Scheduling conflict perhaps, maybe they just don't like each other, maybe one insulted the other's mother?

Read...It's only a bigot all about you snub because Newsome is pro-gay and it fits your narrative that Obama is the Devil incarnate.

[mitchtv]

101. Actually Willie Brown said so

I can't look now, but maybe later
>>"I gave a fund-raiser at (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," Brown told the Chronicle. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/02/07/1
quote>>"One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fund-raisers for that particular person -- not once, but twice -- because of this issue."
Good Enough?

[Touchdown]

103. Because of what issue?

Gay Marriage, or endorsing Hillary? Newsome (and a spokesperson) mentions both in the article. Brown thinks it's the latter.

Whichever is convenient to your personal grinding axe?

[mitchtv]

107. Then why deny?

either you did or didn't say that. If it were a stand alone issue it would be one thing, it is not.

[Touchdown]

114. So it's the propensity that you indict him for then?

"Well, he robbed those two banks before, so he must've robbed this one too!":freak:

BTW: He's now the nominee now. Hillary doesn't have the numbers. Please come to terms with it.:hi:

[MNBrewer]

104. so

Hillary had her picture taken with Newsom and STILL doesn't support gay marriage?

[Creideiki]

106. Except when the governor said he would pursue it in New York

She said she was really happy.

She's been burned badly on the issue, but can't see her vetoing from the right.

[MNBrewer]

108. on gay marriage???

[jonmiller74]

109. Was that before or after He endorsed her or was it after

the news of his affair broke or after his acknowledgment of Alcohol abuse broke. This could easily explain his reluctance to be photographed; a concern over what scandal might break next. Because someone doesn't do an interview or pose for a photo does not prove ill intent. Just as doing and interview or posing for a photo does not prove support of our cause. PGN has a history of twisting the truth for it's own agenda, sometimes it's our agenda too and sometimes it is a business decision.

[mitchtv]

110. Don't know

but he has appeared with Ted Kennedy, so he isn't that chosey about others' morals