Barack Obama, Rev. Wright, Proper Context, & Taking Things Way Too Personally
Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'
Full text here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUUI've become a party to taking things a lot more seriously and personally than could ever be good for me to do. I believe that Barack Obama would be better for our country as ( Read more... )
Full text here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUUI've become a party to taking things a lot more seriously and personally than could ever be good for me to do. I believe that Barack Obama would be better for our country as ( Read more... )
I respect your position here; I think you're spot on when you stand in support of those who prefer Clinton to Obama, and I agree with you on that. I've outline a lot of the reasons I personally prefer her to him in my own journal, so you're welcome to catch up with that there rather than have me run down the list here.
Having said that, however, I am particularly disturbed by his comments today, not necessarily because of the specifics of his message, but rather the broader strokes it paints in light of his own documented homophobia (whether a function of political expediency or otherwise).
I am speaking primarily of his outright refusal to be photographed with San Francisco's Mayor, Gavin Newsome, well over a year ago, long before the campaign for the "campaign" began.
I mean, here he is, speaking of marginalized people based on race, and yet, he himself, continues to marginalize another group of people based on yet another genetic predisposition: sexuality.
Hillary, on the other hand, has supported our community throughout the years. And while she may not have been the most staunch supporter, she has stood up for our rights in ways that did not amount to political suicide for someone in her position. I have to respect that; I have to understand that is what it will take, and the advances will be made in small steps and not in the giant leaps we'd all prefer.
And lastly, I have to ask how you can reconcile this, and be in support of Obama as a result?
I hope you know I respect you tremendously. I value your opinion over most other's because you, sir, are really in-the-know when it comes to these matters. So my question is based in sincerity, and not out of maliciousness or your-candidate-versus-my-candidate antagonism.
Reply
I take into consideration what you're saying here and while I understand your concerns (and in part share the same ones), I don't think my choice in supporting him over her is limited to just that one thing. If it were that easy or cut and dry, that would be one thing - but it's not. There are much bigger issues at stake that for me overshadow such things as photo ops with city officials. I've not heard his explanation for it, so I'm not going to judge him on that particular thing. I do admit that I wonder myself why he made that choice, but still - that's petty to me personally in the grand scheme of all of this.
I appreciate your respect and offer you mine, and take your question in the honest spirit in which it was asked of me. I hope that was a sufficient answer, if not, I'll try again!
Reply
Major apologies. I have no idea why or where I got that...
And I appreciate your answer. Thank you.
Reply
I don't understand the near-obsession I've seen about Obama not getting a picture taken with Newsome, and then making the rhetorical leap that this means that Obama is so incredibly anti-GLBT.
It was just a simple picture. How can that then generate your question to Brad of "And lastly, I have to ask how you can reconcile this, and be in support of Obama as a result?"
To me - and perhaps, to me alone - that just seems to be such an over-the-top non-sequitor that I've never been able to get my brain wrapped around it. "Obama didn't have his picture taken with Newsome. How can you DARE think of supporting him?". To me - and, again, perhaps to me alone - I just don't see the question flowing from the statement. I just don't.
Reply
And BTW, nothing about it was "rhetorical."
Reply
I'm certainly not saying you don't have the right to ask the question - though the question is loaded, and presupposes an answer that I just don't follow. I'd like to follow it, if you could help.
If it wasn't a rhetorical leap, then there's something more concrete than "Obama didn't have his picture made with Newsome" going on. All I've seen is that Obama didn't have his picture made with Newsome last year. I don't understand the unstated conclusion you're making, and I'd like to.
Reply
My question to Brad was asked in an effort to understand his position. If I can't ask that kind of a question without being called-to-task for it, then we're no better than the right-wingers who accuse us of being unpatriotic for questioning the Shrub...
However, look at your statements. You are the one attaching histrionics where none was offered. When you use words like "non-snarky answer," "near-obsession," "rhetorical leap," "incredibly anti-GLBT," and "over-the-top-non-sequitor," you are guilty of lumping us all into one easily-dismissable group, and as such, descend into demagoguery.
I would offer, that you sir, are guilty of doing to us what you accuse us of doing when you pose that question.
Now, take my question in the context of the occasion at which it happened:
At a luncheon, organized to honor Mayor Newsome for his efforts at promoting legal equality for GLBT people in San Francisco, at which Obama was in attendance, he reportedly responded to an inquiry about having his photo taken with Mayor Newsome by saying that he would "prefer not to."
Why? Why would someone so much in support of diversity have an issue with having his photo taken with another man who was turning "words" into "actions?"
Was Obama having a "bad hair day?" Did the meal disagree with him and he was a little "green around the gills?" (And yes, I'm being silly and facetious with that.)
Or, rather, was it that he, anticipating his coming run for the White House, "prefer[red] not to" be documented with the most pro-homosexual Mayor in the country at a luncheon in Newsome's honor, because he knew such a photo would come back to bite him in the ass on the campaign trail?
I never asked Brad how he could "DARE" think of supporting Obama; that you elevate it to such a level of histrionics is actually insulting.
I asked how he could reconcile that event, and the statement it made, with what Obama spoke of today. They are diametrically opposite in my opinion. Any candidate who talks of unity and diversity the way Obama does, should not even hesitatate to include the GLBT community in that patchwork cloth. That he does, gives me reason to pause.
Reply
And I thank you for the details. The "what", and to an extent the "why", you have answered for me. Again, thank you.
It is precisely those details that I have been unable to glean from anyone who has equated "No pic with Newsome" to either "Obama is anti-GLBT" or "Obama is obviously unworthy of my support". Perhaps it's living on the opposite side of the continent and not having this "hit" the GLBT news outlets over here; perhaps it's just not knowing which sites to trust when it comes to Googling the issue; perhaps it's the passions that this race is bringing out in everyone. Regardless, I've been unable to educate myself on this issue, and every attempt to do so has failed. Miserably, miserably failed.
And again, I thank you for your time and answers. I asked you for help, and you provided it.
Reply
On behalf of all of us who do support Hillary, I apologize that some over-zealous types have done this to you. There is no place in the political discourse for this type of behavior; it belittles us all and solves nothing.
If there cannot be an open exchange of ideas and viewpoints, then we devolve into simple-minded lemmings who are easy to manipulate and control. I, for one, refuse to be that person. Irregardless of the fact that my one vote, in the reddest-state-in-the-Union, is meaningless, I will continue to read, to think, and to decide for myself.
I would never think of attacking any person for doing the same.
The logic, perhaps; the "facts," most certainly when they are erroneous; but never the person.
I thank you for your time and answers.
I am glad to be able to help. I don't claim to know it all, but I will stand by what I do know.
Reply
Secondly, no apology needed for the actions of an overzealous few. I'm a big boy (just ask my hubby, who's been after me to lose some weight!) and can take of myself. It's just that, overwhelmingly, the Clinton supporters I've encountered, both online and IRL, are agog not just that I as Gay Man cast my vote for someone else in another redder-than-red state (though I'll grant that Utah is one of the few places that can out-magenta Tennessee), but that I did not automagically support Hillary, period. And then quite vehemently and vitriolically went on the offensive with their attack, instantly starting with "Obamaniac" then going directly downhill from there.
Hell, some of those same attacks, with a refusal to even try to "agree to disagree", I encountered just a few days ago in one of angry_biscuit's earlier posts. And, a couple of weeks ago in a different LJ, it was another rabid Clinton supporter who not only attacked, but did so in BIG BLINKING ITALIC LETTERS in every reply. (Yes, my eyes hurt as much as my brain.)
To bring this somewhat Full Circle, the last person repeatedly brought up The Newsome Picture Issue. When I tried to ask for more information on it, my question was dismissed with Yet Another Iteration of "Obama refused to have his picture taken with Newsome" but nothing about why that should matter to me. For iteration after iteration after iteration, all he could tell me was that Obama didn't have his picture made with Newsome, and therefore was the Putridly Poorest Potential President. My graduate work was in the field of computational mathematics, and there's nothing I despise more than Infinite Recursion. Which was where I felt like I was being left.
I understand and am thrilled with the passion that this year's election is bringing out in folks. What seems to be getting lost in the "fog of battle", however, is that, once we're past the convention,
WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE.
I come from a long line of left-wingers. My parents claim that they're the only Democrats in all of Duval County, Florida. My late grandmother from the coalfields of southern West Virginia would half-joke that the Holy Trinity was Jesus, F.D.R., and John L. Lewis. And she was, truly, only half joking.
The paleocon/fundamentalist wing of the Republican party has done too much fucking damage to this country to allow them to maintain power. We must let our voices be heard, that This Will Not, Shall Not, Can Not Continue.
Regardless of who the Democratic nominee might be, regardless of who we might have individually supported during the primaries and/or caucuses, as I put it the other day - we simply must make sure that Bushy McClone is McCan't. And McWon't. And McNeverWillBe.
Reply
It's really funny you should say this, because my own experience has been exactly the opposite, to the point where I removed the person from my friends' list and told them I wanted no further communication from them becuase they turned every message into a personal attack on me. And yes, this person is a staunch Obama supporter.
I offer the zealots exists on both sides of this campaign, and that their actions are what's contributing to the foul taste in our mouths.
Now, what I'm going to say is probably going to upset you, but I have to be honest. I have seen nothing yet from Obama that will make me vote for him should he get the nomination. In fact, everything I've seen reminds me so much of the 2000 Bush campaign, that I'm quite frankly, scared.
We are at a perilous crossroads in our nation's history. To be blunt, we're fucked right now, and I don't believe Obama's message of hope and change is going to be enough to really affect the change we need.
In my opinion (and it's only my opinion), we need someone in the White House next year who has significant public policy experience, the connections behind-the-scenes to get things done, the ability to build cross-party coalitions and consensus, and the balls to make the tough decisions when necessary.
I am not convinced that Obama can be that person. He hasn't had enough time in Washington to do that.
I have never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate; if Obama gets the nomination this year, I may vote for McCain because I believe he can navigate the shark-infested waters, and work with the Democrats to fix the mess.
The experience card plays very heavy for me this year. Naievvete and hope is not what we need in the White House. Leadership is. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have proven their leadership, ideologies notwithstanding.
Reply
The experience card plays very heavy for me this year. Naievvete and hope is not what we need in the White House. Leadership is. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have proven their leadership, ideologies notwithstanding."
This was the part that I went from "Okay, I'll agree to disagree" because my teeth jumped out of my head, turned around, and ate my brain. Quite frankly, I'm horrified. How that bellicose experience from a flip-flopper the likes of McCain would serve us better than Barack Obama... I don't even have the words right now to explain the depth of my abject horror on that.
Reply
I don't want to vote for McCain. Really. It's going against every instinct. But voting for Obama is even worse for me. (Not that my vote for the Democrat or the Republican Presidential Candidate will matter much in Utah anyway - this state is going to go to McCain anyway you slice it.)
Reply
This doesn't upset me, it just profoundly saddens me.
My partner of a decade-and-a-half and I lived in the middle of being the Republicans' "whippin' boys" in 2004 in Georgia and then again in 2006 in South Carolina, with that party's faux-hysteria over "Marriage Protection Amendments" to their respective state constitutions. With those actions, as well as the party's efforts at the national level to pass an amendment to the U.S. constitution banning anything resembling "marriage" or even just basic legal protections for us as a couple, the Republicans abdicated and forfeited my vote for the rest of my life.
Given the total and repeated animus the Republican party has produced against anyone not straight, white and (usually) male all across the southeastern U.S., and what their national platform consistently states that Republicans stand for, I simply cannot fathom any of "us" casting a ballot for a party that considers "us" to be capital-t "Them". After my experiences with and under Republicans for the last many years, the concept of a "Gay Republican" makes as much sense to me as "Jews For Allah" or "Hindu Steakhouse". Any and all of those simply Do Not Compute for me.
Never mind the fiasco of "Great Job, Brownie!" after Katrina. Or the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Or the mess that's been made of the economy in favor of Oil, Big Bidness (bless you, Molly Ivins!), and Big Oil Bidness. The "gay thing" alone shall prevent me from ever considering casting my vote for anyone with a "-R" after their name.
You are quite right - we're fucked right now. And I see no need, no reason, and no motivation to allow our fuckers to continue to pound away at us using sand as lube.
Reply
I've somewhat reconciled with myself that equal rights under the law for "us" may not be something I see in my lifetime; that may take too long at the pace we're going.
Right now, I'm more worried about the continued devaluation of the dollar, the continued collapse of the airline industry, the continued erosion of the middle class, etc., etc., etc.
Those are problems that need addressing. Hope and platitudes won't fix any of those things. Despite my distaste for Republicans in general, and this is not meant in any way, shape or form as an endorsement, McCain (and Clinton) in particular has shown an ability to work with those on the other side of the aisle in drafting and passing legislation, and has been around long enough to forge the kind of relationships that will eventually help.
I am wary of his ideologies, but legislation is not a one-man (or one-woman) show; no President can make legislation on his/her own. It's only when we have one-party dominance in both the White House and Congress that we see major damage, and I don't think we're going to see Congress swing back to the Republicans this year.
I know I sound like a broken record at this point; I apologize for that.
Reply
As it stands now, we can pay a local lawyer around $1,000 each for new wills, new powers-of-attorney, new medical powers-of-attorney, etc., since we now live in a state different than where we lived when our present documents were created. However, thanks to all of the "Marriage Protection Amendments" that have been enacted across the southeastern U.S. over the past several years, there's an excellent chance that none of those new documents would be held legally binding because they give the appearance of at least a civil union if not outright marriage between two men. For that, we have the Republicans' fear mongering and only the Republican party to thank.
Two of your listed fears - the continued devaluation of the dollar, and the erosion of the middle class - are, in my mind, directly attributable to the actions as well as inactions of the Republicans who held Full Power in this country at the Federal level for 6 of the last 8 years. Having more Republicans in control of the different parts of the Executive branch, and expecting them to do something different than they have already done over the past 8 years, seems at best foolhardy to me. For example, the actions of the Treasury secretary in ensuring that Bear Stearns was taken care of to its executives benefit, all while bleating that any help for those dealing with their home mortgages should never occur and that the homeowners should just basically suck it up. Or the actions of the Treasury coupled with the Federal Reserve to "fix" the problems in the financial sectors by printing more and more dollars, thus giving us the devaluation of the dollar you say you fear.
And, from my perspective, many of the reddest-of-the-red states will continue staying red, and not moving to the slightest shade of purple (I know better than to hope for blue), as long as folks throw up their hands and say "I may as well vote the way the rest of the state votes, since it just doesn't matter". You may be surprised, as I was in 1992 when Georgia squeaked into the blue column for the only time in the last 6 elections, by 13,000 votes out of over 2.2 million votes cast.
As I said previously, regardless of whether the Democratic nominee is Clinton or Obama, I plan on casting my vote for them, regardless of any misgivings I might have with the Democrat. I can not, and from now on can never, cast my ballot for a Republican in good conscience and expect to sleep at night. That's how it is for me. You, obviously, have different priorities and have no problem voting for a Republican because you feel McCain more properly aligns with your concerns. So be it, and we'll just have to Agree To Disagree. Perhaps strenuously, but A-to-D nonetheless.
Reply
Leave a comment