Stumble over gay issue dogs Obama

[DeepModem Mom]

Chicago Tribune: Stumble over gay issue dogs Obama
Democrats try to keep base, centrists happy
By John McCormick and Manya A. Brachear
Tribune staff reporters
Published March 22, 2007

....The subject of (a Chicago Obama supporter's) anger: Obama's initial statements when asked whether he believed gay acts are immoral, a view asserted a few days earlier by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked by the Tribune about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Obama, like his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), was criticized for initially dodging the question.

Although his campaign later issued a statement denouncing Pace's comments, and the senator went on to say on national television that he did not believe homosexuals are immoral, the damage already was done, with some local gay activists voicing dismay over what they saw as their senator's vacillation.

The criticism highlights one of the major challenges confronting Obama, Clinton and other Democratic presidential hopefuls. They must keep their political base of activist, highly partisan supporters happy while not alienating other, more centrist voters they hope to woo in the general election.

Striking that balance is especially important as Democrats try to learn from the lessons of 2004, when Republicans successfully used the issue of gay marriage to boost conservative turnout and link some Democrats to a practice opposed by many Americans....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703220144mar22,1,2969757.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[IWantAChange]

1. does it appear that Repukes have somewhat established the 'rules??'

[MADem]

2. OOOOPS--pull apart every word now, parse every statement, play the gotcha game!!!

Jesus, it's so tiresome. If they aren't slapping Hillary around, they're crapping on Obama. Can't have any uppity women or Black men competing for the White House, I guess.

They jump on people, they don't give them time to consider the question, to see the full context, they simply DEMAND an opinion right now. Quickly, now--feed the news cycle beast!!!!

What DO you think about Youth in Asia, Senator Obama?

Euthanasia?? I don't go for it!!! Why, that's just DREADFUL!!! He replies... And there goes the Asian vote!!

[paulk]

16. youth in asia - LOL

when I was in high school (getting to be over 30 years ago, now) a girl in my English class gave a speech on "euthanasia" - a word I had never heard before ... I kept hearing "youth in asia", and I couldn't figure out what in hell she was talking about!

[DURHAM D]

3. I wonder -

My guess is that Obama actually believes that homosexual acts are immoral. His cleanup comments seem political not personal.

A candidate who says that baby-boomers need to get over themselves simply strikes me as arrogant and perhaps thinks he is better than others.

[BL611]

4. Do you have the gift of telepathy

that you can ascertain what Obama really thinks, despite having no evidence. Sounds pretty arrogant to me, if your a baby boomer you're just proving his point...

[DURHAM D]

6. Yes I do. n/t

[BL611]

10. Maybe your time would be better spent

in vegas, than ruminating on Obama.

[DURHAM D]

11. You little jerk. Have a nice day. n/t

[loudsue]

24. In Obama's second book: The Audacity of Hope, he says one man/one woman

He's all for civil unions and equal rights for gays, but he believes marriage, itself, is traditional, and should be one man, one woman (not several women, as was popular in parts of Africa where his father & step-father's families lived).

Any pause on his part, in a speech, was probably to figure out how he phrased it in his book.

DUers really should read his two books before they support, or pull support from, Obama. You will see the man you are discussing, as he lays it all out there. And he's an excellent writer...they're both good reading.

After reading his books, I don't think he's ready to be president yet. I really think he's too naive about too many things. I think he's a truly great man, and I think he'll have a long & successful career, if the media doesn't ruin him first. Someday I think he'd make a good president, and I hope to live to see that day. But he's not ready right now. And he won't be ready in two years in my opinion.

:kick::kick::kick:

[MistressOverdone]

5. Did he really say that about Baby Boomers?

That's funny. He should meet our CHILDREN! Now THEY need to get over themselves! LOL

Actually, everybody should "get over themselves." It's the first step to maturity.

But you know, there are a lot of Boomers out there. Might not want to piss them off. On the other hand, according to the news last night, most of us will have Alzheimer's within months so what the hell...

[ripple]

8. He was talking about how the political leadership of the

baby-boom generation has served an important purpose, but it's time to move forward, re-frame the discussion, and look to the next generation for some new perspectives and ideas.

I think this is definitely an advantage for him as a candidate and I see nothing wrong with him setting himself apart from the other candidates in this manner.

[DURHAM D]

9. Let me give you more info -

"The time has come for the baby boomers to get over themselves.

Americans hunger for a different kind of politics - one that moved beyond the tired ideological battles of the 1960s.

Americans of all ages are sick of feuding boomers and ready to turn to the generation that came of age after Vietnam, after the campus culture wars between freaks and straights. . .

In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich and in the elections of 2000 and 2004 I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation - a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago - played out on the nation stage."

Like I said - he strikes me as arrogant and frankly does not know what he does not know. I can do without this kind of personal view - we already have a jerk in the WH. Trying to appeal to late boomers, GenX & Y, and the remaining greatest generation by trashing and marginalizing the boomers is beyond cynical.

[ripple]

12. He isn't trashing and marginalizing boomers in general,

he's talking about the politics of the boomer generation- a political dichotomy that sprang from intolerance and polarization. His book does a better job of articulating it, but he's essentially saying that the politics that changed our nation for the better in the 60's continues to shape our political climate, and not necessarily for the better.

I don't find it at all arrogant for a presidential candidate to share his perceptions of politics and his vision for what he has to offer to improve the situation. Obama's comments about the post-boom vs. the boomer generation don't trash and marginalize boomers any more than Hillary's comments praising women in office trash and marginalize men.

I think Obama's philosophical and nuanced approach to complex matters is unfortunately lost on some folks. :shrug:

[DURHAM D]

15. Gosh - do you accept philosophical and nuanced

answers to complex questions from Senator Clinton or anyone else? Most folks here are the DU actually don't.

Furthermore, your insult aside, I can capable of sorting out his nuanced answers. To me, he has positioned himself as the newest member of the old (DLC) guard.

[ripple]

18. As a matter of fact, I do

And I don't trash Senator Clinton on here, although I acknowledge that I have seen some unfair attacks tossed her direction- just as I have seen plenty of unfair attacks lobbed at Senator Obama, many of them by Clinton supporters.

Obama is not DLC- he never has been and he never will be. In fact, that is precisely the "old guard" sort of politics he was criticizing in the article. Hillary, on the other hand, is DLC- in fact, her husband's political success was largely attributable to the DLC.

I apologize if you took offense to my post, but it certainly does seem that Obama's comments are taken out of context quite often, while his larger message is completely missed or unacknowledged. Your comments in this thread are no exception. Whether it's simplicity or deliberate distortion, the nuance and larger message have been completely overlooked.

[DURHAM D]

20. What is his larger message?

He is good at stating he does not like the political jockeying of the past several decades and he wants a new political paradigm. After that, what? This is a 230 year old lumbering system so how is he going to dramatically (or not so dramatically) change it and what does he bring that is different? I haven't picked up on his plan yet. Is it talk to your enemies? Is it compromise sooner? Is it compromise later?

[ripple]

29. To put it simply,

Re-establish the dialog. The same heads that were banging against each other twenty years ago are still banging against each other today. All the while, partisanship continues to out-pace leadership by a mile or three. And it has become an accepted practice- expected, in fact.

The difference with Obama is that he is able to speak about progressive ideas in ways that don't make them seem like 'crazy liberal notions'. He recognizes human nature and accepts those who might not agree with everything he says, with the hope that they will at least listen. He knows that, like the situation with Iran, one must talk to one's enemies, in order to make progress.

He understands that in order for a democracy to be effective, ALL citizens must be included- and this isn't just empty rhetoric. You'll note that he won't be accepting PAC money for his run and he made a pledge to accept only public money in the general if his opponent will do the same.

It's also helpful that he relays his message well, no matter how much you might dislike him yourself. I won't be satisfied with a narrow win in 2008 if it creates an even greater chasm in our country than we already have today. And I'm not talking just DC. There is a hell of a lot more that is broken about this nation than our policies.

Senator Obama has the ability and vision to become the first populist, progressive president this country has ever seen. This isn't about compromise, it's about leadership. One can't shout a message loud enough to people who won't listen. On the other hand, if the right person is talking, even a whisper will do.

[DURHAM D]

32. So you have fallen in love. Congrats - you actually

seem to be describing Bill Clinton. But that can't be right - after all he is a boomer. You know - needs to get over himself and all.

By the way - I don't hate Obama. But I do not think he is Presidential timber - at least not yet. I do not yet have a candidate for '08. I wanted it to be Obama but he is just nothin' to me.

[ripple]

35. And the point whizzes by once again

and is responded to with an insulting trivialization of my motives. And given that I am a lesbian, a laughable one at that.

Clinton was never a progressive. He was a moderate who was fueled by the DLC all the way. I'll concede that he was a populist, but in my opinion, Obama has the ability to far exceed his appeal. I could get into a lot of differences between the two, but I don't want to turn this into a Clinton-bash. I disagree with a number of decisions he made as president, however I recognize that he also spent most of his presidency dealing with a republican legislature that dogged him at every turn. Overall, he did more good than harm.

I've gone out of my way to explain myself, but I've come to the conclusion that you aren't interested in any sort of productive dialog.

You don't support Obama and you see arrogance where some of us see confidence. I could read more into that (as you did with my comments), but I don't particularly care to play that game.

[MistressOverdone]

23. I do agree

that there is wisdom is some of the things he says. But perhaps laying it all at the feet of the Boomers is not quite fair. Yin and Yang and all that. We have always been a polarized society. And having been born in 1961, he's a Boomer himself.

I look forward to hearing what he has to say over the next few months. He is a passionate man. Whether that passion will develop into the kind of leadership we need.. well, we'll just wait and see. At this point I'm just glad to see some new players on the stage.

[TankLV]

27. I have to agree with you. That is why, initially, EVERYTHING he said I was aghast.

He is another religious fundamentalist, IMO.

Either you're for FULL EQUALITY, or you're not - and Obama appears to be equivocating and trying to have it both ways...

It's simple to state - "I'm for complete equal rights for all."

It's not a hard concept at all.

But the excuse making by too many DU'rs here is simply nauseating...

As a gay man, there is something about him that raises my "alert" button...

[Alamom]

13. He did. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

7. And, in the process, he gave the best answer yet as to why homosexuality can not be called immoral

From Larry King on Monday:

"I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral. I think that people are people and to categorize one group of folks based on their sexual orientation that way I think is wrong."

[TwilightGardener]

14. Who really cares? Does anybody really believe Obama

thinks homosexuality is immoral? And even if, deep deep down, he does, what on earth would he do about it, legislatively? Nothing! Same with Hillary. Neither of them would advocate for discrimination against gays or anyone else, so why is this a concern? How much ass-kissing do our candidates have to do on a daily basis to prove their worth as Dems? It's getting to be no different than the 'Pugs having to crawl before evangelicals. Obama stated his answer. Take him at his word, and stop beating a dead horse.

[Generator]

17. Whew I read that he was stumbling over Gay dogs.

Is this country twilight zone central or is it just me?

[ripple]

19. LOL- it could also read 'gay issue dogs'

would those be homophobic canines, I wonder?

[AtomicKitten]

21. Surely the MSM has something of substance to talk about.

It is they that are dogging Obama; nobody else gives a crap about this nonissue.

Gobama.

Media Heathers:

[HuffleClaw]

22. wait? he stumbled over a gay dog?

[ruggerson]

25. Listen to yourselves

and compare the responses on this thread to the multiple threads when Hillary did the same dodge as Obama.

Obama dodges a direct question and the DU response is: "doesn't the media have something better to report on?" "Who cares?" "He answered it eventually, didn't he?"

Hillary dodges a direct question and the overwhelming DU response is: "Whore!" "bitch" "Calculating cunt" "evasive corporatist Republican!"

Egads.

Some of you people are fucking hypocrites. And that's said as someone who would rather have Obama as our candidate than Hillary.

[mitchtv]

26. Thanks for that

I think Edwards would make a better president, and I agree with the comment about how Sen. Clinton is treated for essentially the same dodge. I do not trash any Dems.

[AtomicKitten]

28. yep

[Cameron27]

31. Good for you ruggerson

That's exactly the kind of hypocrisy expressed here, and I'm saying that as someone who has Obama in the top 3 favorite category.

[zulchzulu]

30. "Stumble over gay issue"...nice framing...

Hey lookeee here! It's...it's...it's... that's right! A NON-ISSUE!!!! Weeeeee! Woooooow! Ooooo!

I know. Let's get this interview here....hmmmm.... and uh... hmmmm.... I know.... TAKE A SENTENCE OUT OF CONTEXT! Yay!!!! Yay!!!

Now...Okey dokey... let's get the NON-ISSUE....put it here and then TRY TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE! Yay! Weee!!!

Look! It worked! Now we aren't talking about the latest couple reasons to impeach the President and we're making an ISSUE out of a NON-ISSUE!!! Yay!

[IndianaGreen]

33. John Edwards had no problem giving a straightforward answer to the same question

A fact that was not lost on the LGBT community, including DU's LGBT community.

[Jamastiene]

34. As one of DU's LGBT community, I would say

you are correct. I heard him loud and clear... "equal rights for all." That's all I needed to hear. John Edwards is one of the good guys. :thumbsup:

[ripple]

36. I think Obama needs to be careful

not to let his handlers micromanage him too much. I think Kerry fell into that trap to some degree and he sometimes came across as being less than genuine. I have confidence that Obama supports equality for all, but I think he was hesitent about making too strong of a statement, for fear of alienating potential supporters who hold different views. It was a mistake and hopefully, he learned an important lesson from it.

[More Than A Feeling]

37. Clearly the corporate, status quo media is desperate to keep this story alive.

Why did they write an article that focused solely on the Democratic party, as though the Republican base wasn't completely insane? That's the real story. They ought to go over to Little Green Footballs, or Michelle Malkin's website, and do an article on that insanity. Or reveal the lunacy of the freepers, that'd open some eyes!