As a San Franciscan, that was the headline at the SF Chron and very talked about on Super Tuesday

Hope Obama's clumsy handling of the McClurkin bit isn't a preview of how he will rate gays, "ex-gays" and evangelicals after election day.

But why wouldn't it be?

Still looking forward to seeing Obama for free this Friday.

I am so proud of the gay community for finally rejecting politicians who pander to homophobic Christians for votes."

-someone's comment over there

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/06/politics/main3799059.shtml

http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/

Southern California Mexicans hate them too so there's your breakdown.

hooray!

Barack Obama speaks about including gays and lesbians in a whole lot of his speeches in front of mixed audiences. Hillary decides to give interviews to the gay press. Which furthers the broader country-wide debate? Hint: Hillary fellating our community in the gay press isn't the answer.

Sigh.

ok amigo, um, tienes razon, um, er, todo sera bien, ahem, viva la revolucion!(?) de veras!

hasta lumbago, er, luego.. ..

this is a plutocracy. our "democracy" is window dressing - nothing essential changes. just because the figurehead is half african or has a vagina means squat.

The Clinton/McCain mixed ticket will win unchallenged in the election with the lowest voter turn out in history.

Obama will be assassinated in 2012 just as he's crossing the finish line.

The upshot of the next 12 years won't be anything notable. Gays will still have no marriage rights, health care will not be any better. Roe v Wade will still be in perilous danger of being overturned, environmental issues will be addressed with fines on citizens exceeding carbon limits while industry (and jobs) will simply move to places a little less Kyoto and alot more slavelabor. Our economy will get bad. Ppor people won't get any poorer because they can't. Just alot of white folks are going to be finding out what it's like to make school dresses out of flower sacks and subsist on staple comodoties like beans, rice, cheese and peanutbutter.

On the bright side, Mexicans will still be here, thank god.

He's gone on RECORD, saying he doesn't approve of Donnie's B.S. Having him sing for him was a political misstep for sure, but I think it represents his ability to reach across the aisle.

If we don't reach out to all people, narrow-minded or not, we'll never solve this problem. MLK didn't make things right by only talking to black people did he?

Ignoring evangelicals won't make them go away, and the only person who I think is qualified to make them change their stupid little minds is Barack Obama.

Hilary is divisive, and that approach hasn't gotten gays anything, ever. You had her as a first lady for 8 years, and she didn't do anything then... What's going to change now? If she's chalking those years as a carpetbagger up to "experience" then what the hell was she doing for 8 years?

I would like nothing more than to be wrong and see a day where we're all equals, but I don't think Hillary will make that happen. She is incapable.

I think her winning would be a sign that the Republic has truly devoured itself. If you're OK with family dynasties, good for you. I'm not. People dismiss that as conspiratorial, but actually there is nothing conspiratorial about it; it's a text book example of dynastic power.

My subconscious is such a beast!

If the court decides in favor of same sex marriage, the amendment that is gathering signatures right now will have a better chance of passing.

Will either of these candidates put themselves on the line? Will they allow the right wing fanatics to march to ballot box in November to pass an amendment AND vote for McCain while they are there??

Warring sides in same-sex marriage debate look to court date

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

(02-06) 18:28 PST SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court scheduled a March 4 hearing Wednesday for the long-awaited clash between gay-rights advocates, the state and religious conservatives over the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/06/BACPUTN95.DTL

SF County Returns

I'm also gay. And, I'm not one of those so-above-gay-culture, intellectual, Emo gays either....I'm a Madonna-listening, gym-attending, circuit-party going, gay. I don't have scruffy hair and hang out at Cha Cha. I hate Ballard. I wear a wife-beater to show off my arms.

But even I'm pretty much disgusted at how many of my friends support Hillary Clinton with NO REASONING WHATSOEVER. Now, I can see straight party line voting...and I even understand voting Clinton WITH SOLID REASONS. From my first hand experience the gay boys are far, far more guilty than the women with identity politics (misguided identity..but uh, okay) and voting for someone based on their plumbing.

Gay men: you are not women, fierce or otherwise!

Thanks, Jason!

I had no idea I was not a woman.

Obama? I can't say that I'm impressed with his willingness to be anti-gay-marriage for public consumption, but . . .what choice does he really have? I'd be shocked if he voted for something like DOMA or DADT. I have greater trust in him to, if not really help us, at least not totally throw us under the bus when politically expedient to do so.

You know, if you don't want to support Obama, fine, great, support your candidate, but don't make shit up/be so blatantly ignorant.

In the Illinois State Senate, Obama consistently fought for increased funding for HIV/AIDS research. He's come out strongly in favor of increasing funds for research and for fighting HIV/AIDS on a global scale.

But don't take my word for it.

I KNOW it's Hillary running for election. My point was though... she's saying "vote for me because I'm experienced", and she's chalking up those years as first lady as "experience". So, since she did so much in those years to qualify them as "experience"... What exactly did she do? More specifically, in regards to this post, what did she do for the gay community? NOTHING.

She's been in the White House before and she did jack shit for us.

If her campaign said "I wasn't really in control, and didn't do anything when I was first lady", then I'd be like... Okay, I'll give you a shot. But, since she's chalking up those years as experience, she needs to have something to show for them. And she does NOT.