Reader comments · Comment: Obama can’t have it both ways · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Obama can’t have it both ways

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dominick J. Di Noto 23 Oct 2007, 5:15pm

    The reason Barak is behind Hillary is because NOW he’s coming out as the hypocrit he truly is!!Having a phony exGay to help him out with Black votes? What a disgusting pig he really is!

  2. Robert, ex-pat Brit 23 Oct 2007, 5:58pm

    Dominick, he’s no different than the other two frontrunners. None of them except Kucinich, Gravel, Feingold, Kennedy and Pelosi are behind equality anyway, so this doesn’t surprise me. Its called political expediency, whatever will get you the most votes, they’ll support. If the triumvirate really wanted our votes, they would have taken a stand on full equality, they didn’t, shamefully. This civil union crap is about throwing the dog a bone to keep us quiet and an excuse to prevent us from every being able to marry. Even if it ever came to pass that all the rights of marriage were to be granted via civil unions, it still would NOT be marriage by any standard and they offer no portability once you leave the country.

  3. Bill Perdue 23 Oct 2007, 6:26pm

    The choice of a jackass as the Democratic Party’s symbol can’t have been an accident. Jackass Party candidate Obama has latched on to Hillary Clintons method of appearing with bigots like the ‘ex gay’ crooner McClurkin and ‘dialoging’ with christian bigots. She’s been doing that for the last year or so and it shows in her poll numbers and her draw from Republicans and bigoted christian women. If he’s to have any chance at all Obama will have to scurry much further and faster to the right to pick up some of Clintons bigot votes. Clinton got her early lead because she and Bill Clinton supported the federal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) bill to exclude gays and lesbian form military service and federal defense of marriage act (DOMA) laws that shoved GLBT folk into second class status citizenship. Gay basher Democrat house leader Pelosi and the quisling Barney Frank were doing the same when they did away with federal civil rights protections for transsexuals entirely. Now their gutted version of the employment anti-discrimination act (ENDA) is at best a symbolic, toothless bill that will only appeal to a few seriously clueless (or conservative) GLBT folks and to the bosses who make a mint paying lower wages to us. It’s been overwhelmingly rejected by the active wing of the GLBT movement. The major candidates of both parties either oppose samesex marriage or take the cowards way out to mollify bigots, a carry over of their decade long support for the DOMA, which was enacted with a bone crushing bipartisan majority of 85-24 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. Most Democrats supported DOMA and 509 bipartisan Democrats and Republicans bigot votes changed our lives for the worse. Then Bill Clinton, this was before Monica Lewinsky’s dress sported all those white stains, hastily signed it into law to “guarantee the sanctity of marriage”. In truth, it was to attract homobigoted voters in the congressional elections that occurred two weeks later in the fall of ’96. The road the Democrats and Republicans have chosen is leading them and their supporters’ inescapably to the right. The superficial distinctions between the parties will diminish even further as issues like Bush’s oil war in the Mideast, their common anti-labor program and their unending attempts to appeal to bigots’ leads to more and more shake-ups and splintering in US politics as a whole. A Republican politician is a baboon in a people suit with a totalitarian christian attached at the hip. A Democratic politician is a Republican in drag.

  4. Dominick J. Di Noto 23 Oct 2007, 7:54pm

    Bill, The choice of a jackass was ment to be a Mule, as in, Stubborn as a Mule.How sad it hasn’t kicked in yet eh?And Robert, you still don’t know if a Civil Union with all the benefits are a detriment or not. But we will just have to understand this is something we will just have to agree to disagree on. Like I’ve said before and I’ll say it agin. I’m NOT depending, or even wanting, a civil union from the STATES level, ONLY the Federal Level with ALL the benefits included. If all the bebefits are included from the Federal Level, who cares what it’s called? AND as you say above HOW do You know for a fact what you’re projecting? You don’t know, you’re only speculating. And now you speculate about leaving the country.

  5. Robert, ex-pat Brit 23 Oct 2007, 8:43pm

    Bill, how can you say Pelosi is a gay basher when she supports full marriage equality?

  6. Bill Perdue 23 Oct 2007, 8:45pm

    Dominick,Jackass: a contemptibly foolish or stupid person; dolt; blockhead; ass.Mule:the sterile offspring of a female horse and a male donkey. Jackass is a better description of politicians like the backstabbing Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who personally nominated homobigot Southwick to the court by voting with Bush supporters in the Senate Judicaiary Committee for him. The vote was 09 against, 10 for. Other examples are the Clintons (DADT and DOMA), Obama, who’s wooing bigot votes by appearing with an all star line-up of bigot musicians like McLurkin and the violently homophobic duo Mary Mary, or the team of Frank and Pelosi who gutted ENDA.

  7. Robert, ex-pat Brit 23 Oct 2007, 8:49pm

    Dominick, civil unions are not working in New Jersey at the state level for starters. Marriage DOES matter, its the gold standard anywhere on the planet. If you and a your partner entered into a civil union at the federal level, your relationship would be worthless if for some reason you had to relocate with your job overseas to a country that doesn’t recognize civil unions. If you were able to marry, your marriage would be valid and recognized in at least five countries so far.

  8. Dominick J. Di Noto 24 Oct 2007, 12:02am

    Yes we know Civil Unions are not working in New Jersey that’s why they are perusing “Marriage.” And I understand fully the limits of a “civil Union” at the States level, reason I wouldn’t enter in one even if California allowed it. Hell I won’t even enter what we have now, which is, Domestic Partnership.BUT you still do NOT know for a Fact if Civil Unions were voted in throughthe Federal level with ALL the benefits guaranteed us that, that wouldn’t work either. You’re not thinking you’re just speculating because you want to Use the word “marriage” and I’m saying I don’t Care what they call it As Long as it Carries ALL the benefits of a hetero Plan!AND yes Bill I can go to the dictionary and pick out the meaning of the word Jackass too–it still isn’t the reason the Democrats use the MULE/Jackass as their symbol. I prefer what I said earlier. And actually Feinstein isn’t abackstabber, she does have a Democrat conservative base too. It’s the reason she choose to go with Southwick that’s disturbing to me.I have her letter expaining why if youcare to see it.You also know that DADT from Clinton, not the Clintons, was the smartestthing to do under the circumstances.And DOMA is a lousy piece of legislation, I’ll admit, but that can be overturned and it was a Republican, Bob Barr, R-Ga,who drafted DOMA not Clinton.He signed it because again it was the lesser of two evils. DOMA made it uneccesary to put it into the Constitution, even though BUSH tried but it failed!

  9. Dominick J. Di Noto 24 Oct 2007, 12:47am

    By the way Bill, DADT now has 136 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. So this will be overturned. If it were in the Constitution it would have been a heck of a lot harder. Baby steps? maybe, but we are getting there. We need Progressives in office to go a little faster. AND if that means getting rid of the likes of Feinstein, so be it! At least she’s for womens rights..

  10. Bill Perdue 26 Oct 2007, 5:11pm

    Robert ex-pat, I just noticed your question about Pelosi. I was paying attention to the discussion on asylum because once the cabal quit red baiting, Yankee baiting and it suddenly got informative and interesting. When Pelosi first ran for office against SF Supervisor Harry Britt she ran a Nixonesque campaign of gay baiting and red baiting. Britt got most of the Democratic vote and Pelosi, a Democrat, got most of the Republican crossover vote. If gay baiting is not a form of gay bashing then the word has no meaning. About samesex marriage –she’s an opponent of the federal DOMA becoming a part of the Constitution and supports gay marriage. So does Cheney. She’s from SF and really has no choice, but given her other stands it’s a lot more like rank opportunism than principle although it’s good thats shes with us on this one quesiton. Her real attitude was revealed in her first campaign and in her recent maneuvering with Barney Frank to make the ENDA toothless. That was done to please House Democrats who oppose it because the bosses who bribe, excuse me, who contribute to their campaigns, want it that way. Frank and Pelosi didn’t gut ENDA to mollify their Republican cousins. Yesterday, the 25th, the DC insider journal THE HILL reported that freshman Democrats are going to the House leadership to kill the original ENDA and retain the gutted Democrat version. Reps. Ron Klein (Snake In The Grass Party – Fla.) and Tim Walz (Snake In The Grass Party – Minn.), leaders of the freshman class of Democrats, carried a message to Speaker of the House of Greed Nancy Pelosi (Snake In The Grass Party – Calif.) on Tuesday “that their fellow first-term lawmakers did not want to vote on an amendment extending civil rights to transgender employees… ” Nancy Pelosi has a personal fortune of about $25 million, which absolutely disqualifies her from representing GLBT folks who work for a living. I think the words of Queerty John sum it up well: ‘Republicans are like big cats trying to run us down for dinner. Democrats on the other hand are like pet rattlesnakes, feed ‘em, keep ‘em warm, but don’t trust ‘em because just when you think they’re your friends………”

  11. Robert, ex-pat Brit 26 Oct 2007, 7:13pm

    Bill, thanks for that. Dominick, even if Clinton, assuming she wins the White House in 2008, pushes for legislation granting ALL the federal rights and privileges of marriage, do you really think it would have the votes to pass? What if she doesn’t have a mandate and what if the dems don’t gain control of both houses? What then? I for one don’t believe it will fly.

  12. Bill Perdue 27 Oct 2007, 8:49am

    We can’t ever depend on politicans to grant us our rights. We have to build massive, militant campaigns to force them to enact good laws.

  13. Dominick J. Di Noto 27 Oct 2007, 4:18pm

    Bob,if Clinton wins she won’t have to push for legislation. Arnold didn’t push for legislation for “marriage,” our elected officials did that, as a matter of fact it was Leno. They did it once and then they did it again and got the votes to pass the legislation, twice. It would have been up to the Gov. to sign the Bill. The same thing holds true for any President, once legislation is passed and presented to him/her. I know Dennis, Feingold, or Dodd would do it. I would hope Clinton would do it and I’m very sure she would. But you know all of this. You give a lot of “what ifs.”I’m more of the optomist, seeing the glass half full while you see it as half empty.

  14. Bill Perdue 29 Oct 2007, 8:20pm

    The 2008 campaign is going to break the back of the fake ‘lesser evil’ theory and go a long way towards shattering the right centrist consensus that’s dominated American politics since the end of WWII. Already we’ve seen Edwards, the friend of working people go down in flames after the NY Times exposed him for his huge investment in a mortgage company foreclosing on Katrina victims. The totalitarian christian right distrusts all the Republican candidates except Huckabee and is threatening to split from the GOP. Barak Obama put his foot in his mouth then shot himself in the foot. George Bush is moving towards an attack on Iran and when he vetoed the children health bill everyone realized that what he really meant was “No child left standing.” To balance that the Democrats keep pouring billions of dollars and tens of thousands of bodies into the cauldron of Iraq and betraying the GLBT communities. That’s why the polls are all over the place. George Bush is DOA with an approval rating of 25%, 2% above Nixon’s just before he resigned. The approval rating of the Democratic controlled Congress has plummeted to an abysmal 10%. The truth is that it’s getting harder and harder to find real differences between one lesser evil and another. Obama’s self destruction was similar to that of Pelosi/Frank and the House Democrats. They assumed that we’d be willing to accept second class citizenship and betray the T in the GLBT equation. It’s to our credit that the overwhelming majority rejected them and so few kowtowed to their treachery. Obama, like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Pelosi/Frank assumed that it’s ok to pander to the bigot vote, to do what bigoted bosses want. Obama and Pelosi/Frank are paying the price now as will Feinstein Clinton as their record is exposed and they move to the right, scrambling to win in 2008. The ‘lesser evil’ theory has never been accepted by the tens of millions of voters who give elections a pass. Now as the differences in the ‘evil’ part of the equation can be calculated in nanometers it ceases to become unbelievable even for the most naive.

  15. George Vanover 1 Nov 2007, 10:16am


These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.