Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Nitpicking Obama's Vocab | The End of the Click Song »

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Some People Love Obama, Some People Hate Obama

posted by on November 9 at 17:46 PM

But either way it goes, it seems, gays and lesbians get screwed. Black and Latino voters drawn to the polls in California because they were excited about voting for Barack Obama boosted the “yes” vote on Prop 8*. But Democratic voters who stayed away from the polls in Arkansas because they couldn’t brings themselves to vote for Barack Obama—dumbfucking crackerass racist piece-of-shit voters—helped to pass that state’s new anti-gay adoption law.

Strong opposition to the candidacy of Barack Obama in Arkansas may have helped conservatives pass a measure blocking the adoption of children by unmarried couples.

The measure, which voters overwhelmingly approved Tuesday and which prevents unmarried cohabitating couples from adopting or fostering children, won strong support from conservatives, exit polls found. The ban affects all unmarried couples but was written with the intent of preventing gay couples from raising children in Arkansas.

Unlike most states, Arkansas shifted to the right politically in this election. Senator John McCain won the state by 20 points compared with President Bush’s nine-point victory in 2004.

“I think white Arkansas Democrats felt cross-pressured in this race,” said Jay Barth, a political science professor at Hendrix College, in Conway, Ark. “They didn’t want to vote for what they viewed as Bush’s third term, but they also couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Barack Obama.

“One response was just to bow out of voting, and their absence probably helped this proposal succeed.”

Before the election polls showed Arkansas anti-gay adoption law failing—by nearly 12 points. Bill Clinton urged a “no” vote, as did the state’s current governor, as did the state’s major newspapers, and its adoption agencies. But evangelicals fired up the bigots in the pews and bigoted Democratic voters stayed home and the ban passed. Good work, bigots. Arkansas has about four thousand children in state care right now, kids who need foster parents and adoptive parents yesterday.

* I don’t say this to place blame! African American and Latino voters only helped to pass Prop 8! But it’s ultimately the gays who are to blame for Prop 8! It was something we did! Or didn’t do! Either way, we’re to blame for Prop 8! Totes our fault! And no one is talking about this except for that awful Dan Savage! Thank you for playing Slog!

RSS icon Comments


The fact that other people are wrong doesn't make your previous posts right.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for only passive-aggressively stirring up trouble.

It's nice to read slog again without holding my breath or being sick to my stomach.

Posted by whatevernevermind | November 9, 2008 6:02 PM

Jack and Jill politics says you're using blacks as scapegoats (racist!) and anyway you should stfu cause if there's homophobia in the black community then that's their problem (just like racism in the white community white people's problem?) but really, you should just shut up.

Posted by matt | November 9, 2008 6:19 PM

Keep it up Dan. We need to reach out more to African Americans AND convince gay people who are racist douchebags not to be. All good points. However, would Dems in Arkansas who are bigoted enough not to vote for Barack Obama be not bigoted enough to vote for for gay marriage? I'm unconvinced.

Posted by Katie | November 9, 2008 6:21 PM


May I once again suggest reading Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls? Did I mention it's Nate Silver?

Posted by elenchos | November 9, 2008 6:25 PM

did you really think you were the first or only person to notice this in the exit polling data? so nice to that you've found a noisy drum to bang to keep the pageviews spiking and your ego stroked.

Posted by stfu | November 9, 2008 6:33 PM

This is what happens: the Democratic Party has this sales job on various interest groups that the Party represents those groups' best interests.

But the only reason they mouth those platitudes is to get elected. There are actual parties that give a damn about gay rights, but we've got too many of my fellow liberals "crying with joy" over the fact that an establishment ticket got elected, just because the head of that ticket happens to be black.


Posted by AR | November 9, 2008 6:35 PM

What exactly is an "unmarried couple"? Anyone (of the opposite sex) can get the piece of paper. I just don't get it. Is there some sort of moral superiority that can be obtained by signing a piece of paper? How would the kids know if the parents have the paper or not? I still beleive my parents were married just because they said so. And they, you know, just acted married - until my mom threw my dad out. Then they weren't married anymore. But I think they still had the paper for a while. It was too expensive to get rid of, I think.

Posted by Cat in Chicago | November 9, 2008 6:44 PM

Dan, I love it when you play lightening rod. Thanks for taking the heat.

Posted by itsmarkmitchell | November 9, 2008 6:46 PM

And I can't spell.

lightning rod, doh.

Posted by itsmarkmitchell | November 9, 2008 6:47 PM

Oh for God's sake. We said we wanted new voters. We got new voters. We said we wanted minority voters. We got minority voters. We said we wanted the big tent. We got the big tent.

Therefore, why is it any surprise that, after almost 30 years of GOP bullshit, where the AM dial went from news and easy listening to 24/7 conservative indoctrination, and the big three TV networks went from independent ownership to big corporate ownership, we should be shocked by a rather reactionary voting population?

We got the turnout for President and congress. That, right there, is huge. Now we have to work on helping these voteres see the light - and see how they've been used for the last generation.

I'm pissed about the results of all these initiatives also, but I'm not naive enough to think that an Obama victory would suddenly make everything wonderful. The election was just the start. We - meaning liberals of every stripe - have a lot of work to do.

If nothing else, think of this: What would we do if we had had all the same bad news about gay rights and McCain/Palin had won?

We've got a foothold.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | November 9, 2008 6:48 PM

I've suspected that gays were much more instrumental in passing prop 8 than most people assume. I believe that there is some form of the "Bradley Effect" that applies to gays who are commitmentphobes, so they say they didn't support prop 8 but in the secrecy of the voting booth they voted yes so they wouldn't have to take their relationships with their boyfriends/girlfriends to the next level.

Posted by Doctor Professor | November 9, 2008 6:55 PM


Think about it this way: I'm gay. Should my opinion be solicited in front of my family (possibly even wife and kids!), or people I don't know who might, possibly, maybe, perpetrate violence upon my person, don't you think I might be tempted to, you know, LIE? For the longest time, standing with the gays=being gay. So I don't trust that poll one damn bit. Hiding behind the numbers isn't going to fool me. Remember how many 'credulous fucking hacks' you saw fit to uncover? And now you're relying on cherry-picking stories from the web? Really, Dan? I guess marijuana IS evil after many people have written about drug busts.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 9, 2008 7:01 PM

THANK GOD that only, like, 49% of Asian Americans voted for proposition 8, because I was not looking forward to being called a "gook" or a "chink" by prop 8 protesters. Even though that's half of all Asian voters who are homophobic, I guess that's not enough to to get singled out by the white gay pity party and get blamed for wrecking everyone's wedding day. Political apathy within LGBT hasn't been singled out, especially where only 50% of LGBTs in California were registered to vote, and of that group, only 30% even bothered to showed up to vote against the fucking thing. It's like the home team didn't even show up to field and play. everyone was probably too busy doing poppers or some such shit. So thanks asian voters! we slipped under the radar again. Sorry black americans, you get the shaft, again, maybe we will pick up the blame-tab for the next botched and poorly managed gay rights initiative.

Posted by bobo | November 9, 2008 7:13 PM

Reality Strikes!

The only conservative shit that passed was anti homosexual crap. Abortion didn't work out this year for them. Senators and presidents arent conservative. fact is, if the conservative media (yeah right cat, yeah fucking right) was actually that conservative you'd see more of a conservative slant in voting patterns.

so take heart, the only issue conservatives have currency in right now is gay bashing. and that wont last forever.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 9, 2008 7:18 PM

Bobo? I gotta say, I fucking love you. If it wasn't for my straight black kin, I'd marry you.

Posted by TheCitizen | November 9, 2008 7:20 PM

(Why our we talking about Arkansas? Oh, Dan's still trying to make up for his racist posts this week... Heh!)

Posted by justin | November 9, 2008 7:31 PM

Hey Dan,

What happened to that post you just linked to where someone insinuated:

"More than two thirds of black voters voted Yes on 8. Clearly, this is a group who agrees that the majority should be allowed to vote on the minority’s rights. Furthermore, this group also agrees that it is possible to be separate but equal. We welcome them to our coalition, and we also look forward to voting on their constitutional rights."

Disappeared, eh? I thought so. What kind of idiot, what kind of fucking asshole, what kind of monster are you? Do you even think before you post? That made absolutely clear what your 'reachout' plans consist of. Ask Mudede to write these posts from now on; at least he has an ideology through which to filter his emotions, even if he is a fucking Marxist.

For the record, I don't think you're racist. But you ARE thoughtless in the way that would precipitate that kind of post, which I'm glad you took down. I can only hope that it was the sunlit clarity of my response that caused you to think of the consequences of your rash behavior--something most people would have noticed immediately, as I did.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 9, 2008 7:34 PM

"The exit polls showed that the one-third of Tuesday's voters who attended church weekly supported the measure by an overwhelming 84 percent to 16 percent, compared with the 83 percent opposition from the one-fifth of voters who said they never attend religious observances."

Eighty-three percent! Guess what, many Black folks go to church. I am Black and queer. I did a shit load of outreach to my Black community--but clearly not enough. Many of us (myself included) spent more time going to Nevada then going door to door in our own home towns.

Black people ARE queer people. The more white gays blame the black community the more Black straights (and gays) see queer rights as white rights.

Posted by Papayas | November 9, 2008 7:38 PM

I find it hard to believe that Democrats who are so bigoted that they would not vote for a black man would turn around and be open minded enough to vote for "unmarried couples" (or whatever euphemism is being used for gay people)to adopt children. It would have take a miracle or a half-million hanging chads for the measure not to have passed in Arkansas.

Posted by Herb | November 9, 2008 7:40 PM

@Catalina-- your voice of reason is always a stylish and much-appreciated addition to the Slog.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | November 9, 2008 7:41 PM

In your wet dreams. Tell that to the 20,000 gay couples who were already married by election day. Or in your dream, erection day. Nighty night, asshole.

Posted by Lurleen | November 9, 2008 8:08 PM

There is no single reason Prop 8 passed. There are a multiplicity of reasons, and all bear scrutiny if we ever want to make progress on this issue. To ignore any one of them will hamstring our efforts every time.

(1) The Mormons bought and paid for a highly deceptive media campaign. They outspent their opponents by a wide margin. They also helped out a lot in the ground game. We can't ignore the efforts and the sleaze of the Mormons if we want to make progress.


(2) The GLBT community didn't do a particularly good job trying to defeat it. We managed to raise a good bit of money to air competing ads. But the ground game was completely outclassed by the other side. Not enough volunteers, not enough outreach, not enough phone banking, etc. Obama proved that you need both: money for an ad campaign AND a good ground game. Plus, uber-gay San Francisco had the lowest voter turnout in the state. WFT is that all about? If they had only turned out in larger numbers (or even average with the rest of the state), that alone might have swung it our way. That's stupid and inexcusable. Where were all these protesters BEFORE the vote?


(3) No matter how much it offends some people, blacks did vote disproportionately against gay rights. No, that wasn't the sole cause of it's passage, but it was undeniably a contributing factor. I confess this caught me a bit by surprise. I have always deeply empathized with the discrimination of racial minorities because of the discrimination I face too. I assumed that they would likewise empathize with discrimination of the GLBT community. But it is now clear that many blacks don't. That many (not all, obvs) have some of the same fucked up religious viewpoints of the religious right. I don't think it is racist to point that out. I see this as a religious issue more than a racial issue. It just appears that it is more prevalent in the black community than I was previously aware of. That means we have to work harder to make them understand the similarities in our civil right struggles, and the harm their religious intolerance causes.


(4) Even among whites and asians, it barely passed (51%). We came closer in CA than in any other state, but the base reality is that nearly half the population still feels it is perfectly acceptable to deny civil rights to gays. Another percent or two among whites and asians, and the disparity among blacks would have been irrelevant.

So, the next time this comes up for a vote, we need to cut the Mormon fundraising off at the knees, AND we need a better ground game, AND we need to do better outreach to minorities, AND we need to continue to make inroads in the broader community. Then maybe we'll make it.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | November 9, 2008 8:16 PM

Dan, does logic defy you? You seem to be having a problem with it lately. If the Arkansas Democrats are so racist they wouldn't vote for Obama...what makes you think they would vote for gay rights?

And why should Black people automatically vote for Gay rights measures? After all the racist crap gay men pull how can we expect Black people to fight for our rights? Look through any gay dating site at all the "white only" messages and then tell me that non-white people owe gay people diddly squat.

Here's an about we blame gay voters for not turning out, or young liberal voters for not turning out in the numbers we keep promising we will. We can't always change peoples' minds but we can always show up at the polls and show the power of our numbers.

Posted by Hunter | November 9, 2008 8:26 PM

Since when is it the LGBTs community's responsibility to protect a tiny minority from the bigoted majority? Of course we need to always be as involved as possible, but I reject the notion that this is our fault and responsibility. It is the fault and responsibility of that other 95% of the population that votes on our rights and likes to think of themselves as Good Americans. Gay people may be the target of this crap, but straight people own this failure of government. It is time we LGBTs held the straight world accountable. Going forward, it is not enough for them to be passively "supportive". If they are real Americans who believe "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't just a scam, then they damn well better act like it by getting off their fat entitled asses and seeing to the restoration of civil rights for all Americans.

Posted by Lurleen | November 9, 2008 8:29 PM


It is all minorities' responsibility to stick together. As I have repeatedly stated, the marketing of gay rights wasn't going to persuade anyone who couldn't buy the associated products, live in the safest possible neighborhoods, or have enough lovers to account for their flagging self-esteem to be 'out'. The corporations, facing a boycott from enough people might just cut gays loose. Then what infrastructure do we have to maintain focus on the injustices we face? All of the gay newspapers have been bought out; if they become unprofitable, they will CEASE TO EXIST. Being gay isn't acceptable--it's "cool" and it has been marketed accordingly. Closeted people are "bi-curious" which not only leads them to dismiss homosexuality as a choice (for rational choice is what all purchases are), but as a luxury as well, in addition to propagating the feeling that bisexuality is a weak-willed person's way of 'selling out'.

The logical end of all this was that people equated 'activism' not with something like ACT-UP, but with sending a check to HRC--a corporation itself, which would GO OUT OF BUSINESS were equality achieved. As this has become more and more commercial, HIV has been ignored; hard drug use has been normalized; what was formerly known as 'prejudice' is now mentioned as 'preference'--all of which can be directly ascribed to the fact that marketing heads now control our movement.

So, bad news is kept to a minimum--it hurts sales. No one thinks of themselves as gay, but 'a person who happens to be gay', like being gay is a restaurant one happens to like. Does the gay community even have the STRENGTH to produce a Harvey Milk? I doubt it. All of that responsibility has been converted into services which dissipate it--psychologists, counselors, sex advice columnists--and the feeling of risk which was inherent to those decisions--the sense of accountability--is now gone. The remaining ethose? "The customer is always right." Hence, no one seems to mind that this is being laid at the feet of blacks and now Latinos. After all, it couldn't be OUR fault....

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 9, 2008 8:47 PM

Yes she is! Just don' talk to her about music--Ugh!

Posted by Filip | November 9, 2008 8:49 PM

Lurleen @24,

I didn't say that the LGBTs community was solely responsible, did I? I laid out a combination of factors that contributed to Prop 8 passing.

The No on 8 campaign tried, and they raised a lot of money. But they clearly didn't run as good a campaign as the Yes on 8 did. Yes on 8 raised more money (thanks Mormans), ran more effective (if sleazy and misleading) ads, and had a better ground game (thanks again, Mormans). We can't pretend it wasn't so. We have to look critically at the No on 8 campaign, and see what we can do better next time. This isn't a slam on them. This is trying to learn from our mistakes to improve next time, not repeat the same mistakes.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | November 9, 2008 8:49 PM

I don't think you or anyone else is wrong for bringing this up. As a woman and Jew, I'm always shocked at homophobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism coming from disenfranchised groups that I've stood up for. I'm not surprised anymore, but I'm still shocked, and I don't understand it.

Posted by Patti | November 9, 2008 8:52 PM

Why not put a Prop on the ballot to strip Mormons of their marriage rights?

Posted by Miles | November 9, 2008 8:53 PM

I would like a whole new thread from Adrian right now, please. NO axes, no grinding, no manipulating the reader, just Adrian. Please hurry.

Posted by tomasyalba | November 9, 2008 8:54 PM

Catalina @10: I'm with It's Mark Mitchell @20. Well said, as is always the case with you, my dear.

If I could, I'd marry the both of you, so we could start our own brand of gay marriage. Blacks and Latinos only at the ceremony, though.

Maybe Riz will DJ? We all know the gay bar that recently canned his sweet and talented black ass for bringing in a crowd that was "too ghetto" and had "too many straight women." Seems appropriate to mention, given today's Slog discussions.

Posted by kerri harrop | November 9, 2008 9:10 PM

Um, "no one" is talking about this except Dan and yesterday's NY Times:

Posted by MichaelPgh | November 9, 2008 9:13 PM

Ugh again! DJ Riz is too good for Miss Catalina.

Perhaps your lame ass could be the DJ.

Posted by Filip | November 9, 2008 9:18 PM

@32 -- my post linked to that story. My post was a comment on that story. The "no one" stuff was about the Prop 8 fallout.

@23 -- the "logic" I cite was in the NYT piece; it's how Dems and others in Arkansas are interpreting the difference between the polling on AR's Prop 1 and the election day results.

Posted by Dan Savage | November 9, 2008 9:20 PM

First off, thanks for the link! Although I am not sure I should thank you since I now have a steady influx of hateful comments on my blog!

So, first of all, you are absolutely right! Gays and lesbians got screwed.

Whoever took away our rights needs to be blamed. And when a statistically significant outlier, like 70%, is seen from any community- that community needs to take some heat. That's how we roll in America. No one gets a free pass on discrimination, regardless of race, gender or history.

The people that get to be angry right now are the members of the LGBTQ community. We are the victims. Stop the victim blaming.

Posted by Jane | November 9, 2008 9:26 PM

"but everyone else is writing this shit! why can't i??"


do i have to do the mom routine where she asks what you'd do if your friends were all jumping off a bridge?

you wrote a whole friggin' book of much better arguments on the topic of gay marriage and family than this. come on! we expect great things from you! we don't expect it from the AP or friggin' u.s. news and world report, fer fuck's sake! we expect brilliant, BITING arguments - from YOU! you can do better, dammit!

it hurts, okay? it hurts to have your family attacked! we know! do not let them drag you down the low road, man. get your gloves back on and get back out in the ring!

Posted by happyhedonist | November 9, 2008 9:34 PM

I really love how most of these comments are about how racist Dan Savage is/isn't but I didn't read a single comment about how many children are going to go without families because if this issue.

That's really quite sad. Marriage is important, yes. Getting children into happy homes is much more important. Who cares if Dad and Dad are married, the kid won't as long as they love him and care for him. Priorities!

Posted by scotlanded | November 9, 2008 9:34 PM

Well - lets just blame everybody for low gay voter turnout, a campaign lacking good TV ads, good field, And no early money gushing.

IT IS YOU YOU AN YOU, certainly not me me.

Good polling meant it was safe for bureaucrats to grab the campaign for the glory.

It has happened all over America. Then out gave people a shelved, the message is soft and not even clever, and tons of money pay for expert opinion to stroke ego - not field organizing.

We lose, finger point, and next cycle lose again cause the same cadre of self appointed leaders step up to do the next campaign as well.

Maybe we should boycott SFO if we care about gay marriage. Victory in Calif was going to start a whole new momentum for gay marriage now it is a big expensive step back.

It seems the infighting and good polling in the beginning told some people they could leave to someone else, after all they run the movement now. It is their job.

I spent weeeks trying to volunteeer my vacation to go somewhere and work for free. NEVER got a call back, NEVER found a human on a phone. My instincts told me it was a shit operation which was going to buy tons of media from an office in LA and not much more.

Ah, the media. I saw three ads and they were simply nothing, nothing. Boring nothing.

So they lost. Over and done. And if we do the same shitty campaign in Washington when the time comes, we will lose as well.

I am glad to see the anger, but, what will be the result. LET ME GUESS

Posted by Eric | November 9, 2008 9:42 PM

Dan, no one can blame you for being furious about the passing of Prop 8, or this bullshit law in Arkansa.

But calling out specific racial groups as being with us or against us isn't part of the solution. The main factor behind all this is income and education, not race. Homophobia feeds on ignorance, not pigmentation.

We are getting close to having the majority of Americans on our side, but we're not quite there. The answer, I believe, is exposure. As more people get to know to homos via media and real life, we'll get there soon enough.

Posted by Sean | November 9, 2008 9:45 PM

I love moments like these because it separates the bitchers from the doers. I see a lot of bitching here.

Posted by F | November 9, 2008 9:49 PM

I am glad to see the anger, sparking new activism, but what will be the answer - SEND MORE CHECKS, ALL IS WELL IF WE HAVE MORE AND MORE OF YOUR MONEY

Posted by Eric | November 9, 2008 9:50 PM

@23- You know what? White woman and jews stood up for your rights. Hasn't been a two way street has it? It was great to see the the payback from your community when OJ got away with murdering one of each. Or the demonizing of Koreans? Or the Crown Heights lynching? There was not ONE black man chanting "no justice no peace" in ANY of these cases. By your "logic" NO ONE should advocate for AA's cause most of your civil rights leaders have worked to INCREASE bigotry towards us. When has a straight black man protested an injustice against women, jews, asians, gays? If people weren't willing to ignore this you would be standing alone. Perhaps you can be as forgiving of gay racism as you are of black sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

@31- Can I ask you where you got this info that he was fired for bringing in to many women and people who were too "ghetto"??

Posted by Kelly | November 9, 2008 9:59 PM

The bull shit shit law in Arkansas is the next wave.

Having worked gay marriage as a wedge so well, the right wing will now turn to adoption in states where DOMA is already law.

Those strategic meeting have bee going on for a couple of years, and reported in gay media.

Just to make THE DAY

It is no surprise we lost miserablly in Arkansas.

To regain seats in Congress and Rs back in other office - watch ten state with anti gay adoption in 2012 or forward.

Arkansas was the test. They won. And they do know what that means.

Because we lost Calif. We have about zero voter currency - looking close at Calif. and Arkansas and Florida and Arizona, I bet you see a lot of the same players on the other side. And they are delighted this week.

Posted by Hello All | November 9, 2008 10:09 PM


You are a jerk. First of all, I'm not Black. Second, you want a Black man who stands up for gay people? Look at Rodney King, recently on VH1's Celebrity Rehab after he had cleaned up he was sharing his feelings about the beating he suffered and one thing he mentioned was that gay protesters stood behind him and rallied with his group before the courthouse, he then spoke on how gay people make this world great. But let me you he's the "exception."

Dan, look at the company you keep when you make posts like these. Don't you understand how blaming Black people only incites people like these?

You didn't see how wrong you were to support the Iraq War at the time...couldn't you just fathom that you could be wrong this time too

Posted by Hunter | November 9, 2008 10:16 PM

@18 Blacks already see gay rights as 'white' as a result of homophobia/heterosexism in the black community. That's why there is the DL and MSM phenomenon. And such a huge public health problem with HIV/AIDS in the black community. As TNCoates says, this shit kills. Cathy Cohen's AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics charts it all out. Highly recommended.

Posted by sean | November 9, 2008 10:28 PM

@18 Blacks already see gay rights as 'white' as a result of homophobia/heterosexism in the black community. That's why there is the DL and MSM phenomenon. And such a huge public health problem with HIV/AIDS in the black community. As TNCoates says, this shit kills. Cathy Cohen's AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics charts it all out. Highly recommended.

Posted by sean | November 9, 2008 10:34 PM

@44 I asked you "when has a straight black man PROTESTED an injustice against women, jews, asians, gays?"

Your example was Rodney King, who said he thought gays were "great" and acknowledged that THEY HAD PROTESTED ON HIS BEHALF. You proved my point. You say gays are so racist... yet Rodney King saw their support. Him saying gays are "great" in not PROTESTING on behalf of gays. If my mom had simply said "blacks are great" but not gotten off her ass to PROTEST I wouldn't be too impressed.

Posted by kelly | November 9, 2008 10:45 PM

Something's fishy. Before the election, no one was attacking black gay men and black lesbians for fearing an 'Obama effect':
But now, no one is permitted to speak of it.

Moving on from heat to light, the end of this Salon piece provides an explanation of "that which we are not permitted to speak for fear of being labeled racists":

Black homophobia has to be understood in order to be addressed, no? And, as the gay black guy (black gay guy?) in the second article attests, black homophobia is a different animal than white homophobia. And THAT has to be taken seriously.

All this talk about gay activists not doing proper outreach makes me think about the flip side: gay and lesbian African Americans need to either speak up more in their own communities (the gay black guy in the article is afraid to use his name...) or need to clearly lay out the contours of black homophobia to activists. Something beyond whitey-gay-racists-bullshit...

Posted by sean | November 9, 2008 11:09 PM

You guys are just pissed because for a whole year you've been mooning over Obama's Dockers, and now you have to deal with the fact that the guy is straight as a ruler and only has an eye for primo snatch.

I mean, did you see that picture of Vera Baker! How could you not want to hit that?! Yeah, even Michele would have to forgive him -- because, yeah, he's a dude!

Posted by John Bailo | November 9, 2008 11:14 PM

Thanks for the links Sean. But the problem is that no one including Savage is demonstrating any awareness or understanding of the the very specific origins or context of black homophobia that are described at the end of the second article you site. And I'm not seeking to excuse black homophobia having been on the receiving end of it as a gay black man but its origin paradoxically really has a lot in common with the nastiness coming from some folks on this site and elsewhere.

Posted by HDS | November 9, 2008 11:27 PM

@49: Bad John Bailo impersonation. Put a little effort into it next time.

Posted by Filip | November 9, 2008 11:43 PM

Yes Kelly You're right. A straight black man has never protested injustice against, whites, women, jews, gays, animal cruelty. It has never happened. Its important that we not lose sight of that.

Posted by HDS | November 9, 2008 11:48 PM

You wont be receiving any answer from gossip mongerer kerri harrop, regarding DJ Riz's supposed firing from a (wink wink) gay bar.

1) Because that not's how it went down.

2) kerri harrop's locally known tendency to speak from her ass.

Jus' business as usual in cherrycanoe/General Bonkers land.

Posted by Fillip | November 9, 2008 11:56 PM

Some more poll numbers on churchgoers:

-- 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes.

-- 81 percent of white evangelicals voted yes.

-- 65 percent of white Protestants voted yes.

-- 64 percent of Catholics voted yes. Catholics accounted for 30 percent of all voters.

A late push by many churches to win over their congregations played a decisive role in increasing turnout and swaying opinion, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, who analyzed the figures.

Posted by Ned Ludd | November 10, 2008 1:06 AM
Posted by zgirl | November 10, 2008 1:14 AM

...are we all getting on Dan for just stating the obvious?

Everyone knows of rampant homophobic rhetoric in minority communities so why exactly is it all news?

Dan's not the least bit racist for pointing it out. It's just a fact.

Not all minorities are homophobes but as a community, they sure did vote that way, didn't they?

In other news, the vast majority of white people are also homophobes!

Posted by Why... | November 10, 2008 1:20 AM

Hey Bobo

Do you think you could arrange for more Asian homophobes to vote yes on proposition whatever the number is next time so black folks can catch a break? (You do know all Asian homophobes in the State of California, don't you?)Yes indeed we are tired of getting called nig uh I mean names by our LGBT brethren in the struggle and it would be wonderful if you could get enough hateful Asian people to the polls to reach the blame -- or ironic-- threshold. I think its 65% give or take a point. Ask Dan Savage for details.
If you don't think you can turn out enough Asians (Philipino bigots can be so unreliable!) maybe you could work on getting Asians to identify themselves as Latino to the exit pollsters. Hey, I'm liking that idea! What do you think? Whichever path you choose, I and many others will owe you an everlasting debt of gratitude.

Good Luck!

Posted by hds | November 10, 2008 1:29 AM

Why - If the vast majority of white people are homophobes then when did 51% of them vote against Prop 8?

Posted by whynot? | November 10, 2008 1:30 AM


I don't take the 'gay white racist' issue so lightly, although I don't view choice of sexual partners as racism as some people do. If you want a truly ludicrous read, then check out Keith Boykin and his ramblings on 'sexual racism'. What I do find disturbing is the willingness of groups to exploit race.

For example, there is a statistic out there purporting to 'prove' that gays are less racist than straights because their rate of interracial relationships is somewhere around 10%. Aside from the fact that sleeping with another race is no indicator that you aren't racist (think Strom Thurmond or Andrew Sullivan), the data were used in such a way as to showcase a diversity that just isn't there.

If I'm not mistaken, the data is drawn from "The Gay Census"-- 'PUMS'. Breaking down the data by race, it seems that 10.9% of gay couples intermarry--a rate trumpeted as four times the rate of straight couples. But, as you can see from a few of the comments, the overwhelming majority of those relationships are between Latino and white men.

The interesting point here is how the figures were manipulated. Until 1980, Latinos were listed as "white" on the census, a fact that changed during the Reagan administration.

This unique position, as you may have already ascertained, represents a rather large opportunity to dishonestly portray gay relationships as more diverse than they necessarily are. What if Jews or Catholics, for example, were listed as non-whites? Why, you could use such creative accounting to say that gays had 'interracial relationships' at a rate tens of times higher than your average hetero couple!

In addition, several of my Latino friends have been rejected by those "white/Latino only" members of gay chat sites for--their words--not looking white enough. Gays prefer Latinos who look like Ricky Martin as opposed to Tito Puente. That is, those with little to none of the indigenous, Amerind ancestry of which the majority of Mexico and South America are composed.

Accounting for factors such as these, it would be no surprise to find that the census figures on interracial couples fall more closely in line with those of their straight counterparts. That the figures would be manipulated in this way suggests a rather blithe and flippant attitude towards the entire idea of 'equality under the law'; rather the attitude seems to be 'the ends justify the means'.

But it goes deeper. If you look at the friends lists in profiles on a site like gay dot com, you will see that gays not only tend not to date outside of their race, but also tend not to even *associate* outside their race within the virtual community, one in which you would assume people would find it safest to do so. Not to mention that a significant minority of these profiles are accompanied by pictures stolen from the web, so as to purposefully misrepresent how the chatter looks.

In the real world, this translates to de-facto segregation of bars, events, neighborhoods and even Pride parades. Not just black/white, but bears, twinks, muscle, elderly.... Is it any wonder, then, that many find it so easy to demonize members of minority groups for voters who had ostensibly little to do with them?

So no, Sean, I don't find the phenomenon of gay white racism to be 'bullshit', any more than gay black racism, or hatred of any other kind. I find it symptomatic of the fact that there really isn't a gay community, and that the fracturing of identity and subsequent loss of momentum that it represents could well translate to a much greater loss of civil rights than was previously supposed.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 2:22 AM

Here we go....

"I am organizing with other gays in my state to start a data base of all christian and black owned businesses and income properties. It will be published on a website called BoycotBigots.Org, which will be a community based list so that No On 8 supporters can be informed when they choose how and where to spend their dollars."

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 3:14 AM

That's just great, no? Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a brilliant plan. Perhaps a more constructive discussion could be had regarding upping Mormon and fundamentalist patronization of black stores. What kind of deal could we make there, hmmm? You'll notice that they don't punish Latinos. Perhaps blacks could ally with conservatives on immigration in exchange for increased conservative business. I mean there is a problem between blacks and Latinos in California anyway, right? Does everyone really want to go this route?

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 4:08 AM

i really dont believe that folks in arkansas who were too racist to vote for obama were going to be progressive enough to let gay people adopt.

Posted by um | November 10, 2008 5:01 AM

Hmmmm. I don't think it's *completely* the fault of gay people that this thing won. But the poorly run No on 8 campaign combined with other issues related to outreach certainly played a part, don't you think, Dan? Not THE part, but a part.

I was thinking back to 2004 when Michigan passed Prop 2, which outlawed marriage equality. I had forgotten just how ANGRY I was with straight people, supposed allies, who were just shocked that it had passed. But had they helped in the cause? Had they done abso-fucking-lutely anything? Nope. Nine times out of 10 they had not. It wasn't really on their radar at all. It seemed like those of us fighting Prop 2 were a lonely band of homos screaming into the wind.

Is that their fault? Ours? Not sure. Most likely it's a combination of things, like in CA.

But I'm consistently amazed that we keep fighting the same battles in state after state, and we keep losing and doing the same stupid shit while our opponents trot out their winning formula every fucking time and win again and again. Something has got to change.

Posted by Balt-O-Matt | November 10, 2008 6:28 AM

Ah, my home state, always willing to hurt her own children in order to step on gay people just a little more.

Posted by Parsnip | November 10, 2008 7:16 AM

Bitching about the voting habits of religious people is stupid and pointless. Religious people will ALWAYS vote for "Biblical principle" over equal rights, you can bet on it.

The path to getting marriage equality lies with the judicial system, just as it has for every other battle for equal rights in this country.

Posted by AMB | November 10, 2008 7:46 AM

Hmm, seems white Catholic surge made the difference, Dan, moreso than African Americans:

Money quote:
"The last Field Poll, conducted a week before the election, showed that weekly churchgoers increased their support in the final week from 72 percent to 84 percent. Catholic support increased from 44 percent to 64 percent - a jump that accounted for 6 percent of the total California electorate and equivalent to the state's entire African American population combined.

The shift in Catholics alone more than accounted for Prop. 8's 5 percent margin of victory."

Your thoughts, Dan?

Posted by Andy Niable, Fagnostic | November 10, 2008 7:54 AM

Dan isn't going to attack the big dogs. He has been concentrating his energies on easier targets. Reading comments here and elsewhere, my own opinion on the matter is starting to shift. People want revenge, not dialogue.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 9:28 AM

Wha's wrong with revenge?????

Posted by Jennifer | November 10, 2008 10:05 AM


The most amazing thing is how he spurs all these smart people to actually bother arguing with his silliness. He's either brilliant - using logical fallacy after fallacy intermixed with simple angry declarative outbursts appropro of nothing, purposefully to stimulate hits and comments OR he really is this weak minded.

For now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's all a brilliant farce, including his most recent impersonation of a cat scratching about his litterbox covering up little cat turds.

He's not the first to play stupid to engage discussion but he may be the most consistent and earnest.

Posted by Bob | November 10, 2008 10:23 AM

@59 and @60
"Aside from the fact that sleeping with another race is no indicator that you aren't racist (think Strom Thurmond or Andrew Sullivan"

When you equate Andrew Sullivan with Strom Thuraman you lose all credibility. If you are going to dismiss him based on a few statements that you find off-putting, do that with everyone else too. Then tell me how many people are left.

As far as boycotting black businesses, again the irony is too thick. AA civil rights leaders have boycotted asian and jewish busineeses when they perceived these groups as getting upity with them. There were talks amoung Cynthea Mckinney supports of boycotting the democratic ticket in 2000 (when Liebermann was running as VP) to "punish" jews for voting against Mckinney. Why are you falsely accusing gays of using abhorent tactics they have never used? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Mckinney supporters have encouraged these tactics in the way you are accusing gays of.

Posted by kelly | November 10, 2008 10:40 AM

What's wrong with revenge? Because it's against people of color. The vast majority of comments here and elsewhere show it. It isn't anger anymore than what Mel Gibson did was due to him being drunk. That is the general character of gay people regarding other minorities. How can Dan go after Mormons? They're on his beefcake calendar. I've read his column since it was in the Onion, and he's NEVER addressed any minority issues. Insinuating as he did was all too easy, and that, combined with what I've seen in every part of gaydom makes me feel like shit. Hundreds of people request an apology, or SOMETHING, but he won't give it because it will make him feel like less of a man. And he wonders why he gets threatened. If the civil rights leaders of the Original movement had been like Dan, then blacks still wouldn't be able to vote. And guess what? 95 percent of gays would be too cowardly to come out were the road not cleared, hammered down, and paved for them by somebody else. And they have always treated the people who sacrificed for them like shit. That's a fact.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 10:46 AM

That is the general character of gay people regarding other minorities.

OMFG. change the word "gay" to "black" and the same person who wrote this (along with 600 other post-ers) would be using it as proof of racism.

Posted by sam | November 10, 2008 10:57 AM

Andrew Sullivan published the Bell Curve in his magazine. I'm not the only one offended; his entire staff threatened to quit. It was a calculated, dirty trick, not based on truth, but designed to directly undermine funding for educating black youth. He was concerned about his taxes. The racism is less overt, but we are more subtle these days. The policy applications of that document are myriad, all of them heavily biased against blacks. And now he pretends to be an ally in his support of Obama, again calculated with a view towards him remaining in the country. Because up until recently, HIV+ people weren't allowed to emigrate here. Say the Bell Curve were applied against blacks with HIV, and the findings of that study were to shift policy against African HIV+ immigration due to some notion that blacks would spread AIDS due to lower intelligence. Would he stand up to that with equal fervor? No, not if it didn't affect him. But he sleeps with blacks, bareback, in spite of his certainty as to their inferiority. And hey, he endorsed Obama! What a gem of a man.

As for Lieberman, he's a tool. McKinney is crazy, and she is no more effective at using the race card to stir up anger than SLOG and Sullivan were in using it to silence the opposition during Obama's run. If the machinations and ulterior motives in supporting him have become glaringly obvious, then no one should be surprised at the anger that is erupting.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 11:00 AM

I don't deny the racism and homophobia of blacks. Perhaps now it can be used to gain political clout instead of being leeched off by people who make sweetheart deals with corporations instead of FIGHTING for their rights.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 11:05 AM

And they have always treated the people who sacrificed for them like shit.

You are referring to gays? I can think of a group this description fits to a T. But I can't say it or you'll call me racist. Yup, there are people who have directed the most virulent hate speech, and some henious hate crimes, against people who died for their right to vote. Wans't gays though.

Posted by kelly | November 10, 2008 11:05 AM

Gay rights would be nowhere without the civil rights movement, which they did not participate in. You sold out. You now lack the infrastructure to successfully defend your rights against attack without corporate endorsement. Read what Larry Kramer has to say about the gays. And the people who died for our right to vote were the idealistic tools of demagogues who enriched themselves while using Affirmative Action as a front: teacher's unions, mortgage brokers, etc. Go ahead and slur away, if you so desire. You can't buy back what WeHo lost for you. It's a game and a scam, and everyone knows it now.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 11:27 AM

@73 and @74
As for Lieberman, he's a tool.

Not relevant at all. There were AA's who were boycotting him not becuase he was "a tool" but to "punish" jews because Cynthea Mckinney lost the election. These abhorent tactics you accuse gays of using against AA's have never been used by gays BUT have been openly used by AA's again and again.

I don't deny the racism and homophobia of blacks. Perhaps now it can be used to gain political clout instead of being leeched off by people

Typical whinning and scapegoating. No one leached off you..... exactly the other way around. The leaches are people who steal money that is supposed to go to poor blacks but keep it to live like kings in Egypt. Need me to name some names? Those are the blooksuckers who leech off the black community. Babydadism drags the black community down more than those big bad companies. This knee jerk cry from many AA's "we are being exploited" is why many people have thrown in the towel with the civil rights movement. When businesses don't move in to black neighborhoods they are accused of racism and that they aren't doing their civic duty. When they do they are accused of exploitation. Even companies like Starbucks which donates a huge amount to inner city charities still has to put with extortinists who demand more.

Posted by kelly | November 10, 2008 11:30 AM

Oh, and here's some newer figures from another thread on the percentage of blacks who voted against you, Kelly. Larger sample:

"1,200 voters from 50 precincts in Los Angeles in Tuesday's election, estimating that 50 percent of Latinos voted for Proposition 8 and 39 opposed it, while 47 percent of African-Americans voted for it and 40 percent against it."

Again, WRONG. Latinos beat out the blacks in a larger sample. But those polls, and your resultant about-face on race issues, spread fast, didn't they? You royally fucked yourself. I am not a criminal, have never been on welfare, and have volunteered extensively for your cause, including at a clinic for HIV. But these last few days tears it. Look up the figures. You fucked YOURSELVES.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 11:37 AM

@73 and @74
As for Lieberman, he's a tool.

Not relevant at all. AA's who were boycotting him not becuase he was "a tool" but to "punish" jews because Cynthea Mckinney lost the election. These abhorent tactics you accuse gays of using against AA's have never been used by gays BUT have been openly used by AA's again and again.

I don't deny the racism and homophobia of blacks. Perhaps now it can be used to gain political clout instead of being leeched off by people

Typical whinning and scapegoating. No one leached off you..... exactly the other way around. The leaches are people who steal money that is supposed to go to poor blacks but keep it to live like kings in Egypt. Need me to name some names? Those are the blooksuckers who leech off the black community. Babydadism drags the black community down more than those big bad companies. This knee jerk cry from many AA's "we are being exploited" is why many people have thrown in the towel with the civil rights movement. When businesses don't move in to black neighborhoods they are accused of racism and that they aren't doing their civic duty. When they do they are accused of exploitation. Even companies like Starbucks which donates a huge amount to inner city charities still has to put with extortinists who demand more.

Posted by kelly | November 10, 2008 11:50 AM

I think all liberal minded people should flee Arkansas so we can board the place up and keep the nuts in their place.

Posted by elswinger | November 10, 2008 11:56 AM

#78 thank you interest troll. I knew this would come to light some day. It is amazing the speed and ease that folks of all colors like to find the scapegoat.

Posted by HDS | November 10, 2008 12:13 PM

Kelly, have you thought of Greenland? I think they have gay marriage there and no Black people. I think you'd be very happy.

Interest troll I don't agree with everything you've said but my it's a refreshingly critical perspective and fairly restrained relative to some of the angry confused racist crap you're responding to.

One of the dilemma's in this whole debate is that there probably really isn't a gay community as such. And as much as I typically disagree with Andrew Sullivan, I think he has said as much. You're right-- gay people are no more or less prone to interracial marriage or socializing than the larger community. I have nothing whatsoever to base this on, but my admittedly biased experience tells me that if anything, gay social networks are more segregated than straight ones.

Another piece of realpolitik. Is it really worth gay people's time to solicit support from the black religious community or even the black general population in California? One of the effects of this misleading exit poll is that its convinced people blacks are somehow at the heart of the problem in securing gay rights. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but if the issue is to get 50 plus one would time be better spent soliciting those votes where they are abundant?

Posted by HDS | November 10, 2008 12:40 PM


Five posts into it, the figures change. No apologies, nothing. They've already forgotten about it. Let them court Latinos. Blacks face an undue amount of risk for very little return and the fundamentalists allow the larger black community to keep its options open. Lies to appear more diverse, racial slurs from an exit poll, but that's all water under the bridge. That should tell you something. Now they are ignoring the homophobia of Latinos. Don't take a risk for them when they are not even willing to apologize. There are better things to do with your time.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 12:58 PM

Kelly, have you thought of Greenland? I think they have gay marriage there and no Black people.

You put 2+2 together and you get 49,673.
Really, this is why people begin tuning out when someone is accused of racism.
Your logic is that to state facts that a black person, who feels the need never to hear a negative word uttered about another black person, doesn't want to hear is the same as virulent racial hatred. I noticed your posts are filled with this rhetoric. NO ONE TAKES IT SERIOUSLY ANYMORE. Yes, HDS, this is a horribly racist country when a black man may, on occasion, hear another black person be criticized, by a white gay man no less! I've met plenty of black people (and whites, asians, hispanics, arabs, jews, christians, gays, etc) who can hear a criticism of someone in their group without starting to scream and go bezerk the way you seem to.
Perhaps you should write to Charles Mugagbe and ask for asylum. I can live fine with black people. You apparently should move to a place where you can live in peace, which would mean a place no one would who dare speak ill of a black preson. President Mugabe would definately understand and support your plight.

Posted by kelly | November 10, 2008 1:16 PM

What do you expect when that is exactly how the gay community responded to that fraudulent exit poll? Homophobia elicits similar derision, but Latinos outvoted blacks on that measure and they received no coverage (or slurs) at all. Just count out a significant amount of black support, that's all. Including mine.

Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' | November 10, 2008 1:29 PM

Kelly I don't know you from a can of paint and mercifully we'll be able to keep it that way for the rest of our days. My problem isn't with white gay people criticizing black people. I do it all the time myself and if you had really read my posts you'd see that I've said that black people blaming white people for their problems is a dead end, that black people can be provincial, and that their tendency to cling to antiquated religious nostrums is obnoxious. My issue is with the contempt for black people simmering just beneath the surface that the prop 8 debacle has brought to the surface that is reflected in the unquestioning eagerness with which people latched onto to a half baked exit poll and have ignored anything that contradicts it, and the racist stereotypes and half truths that fill yours and others posts.

Oh! I've been to Zimbabwe (and a few other countries in Africa). Beautiful game parks, dreadful political situation. And Morgan Changerai (a black man)is fairly critical of Robert Mugabe (another black man). I and many other black and non black people around the world join him in that criticism without being stupid and racist about it. And so may you. Happy Now, Kelly?

Posted by HDS | November 10, 2008 1:44 PM

The original post by Dan Savage was the first time I visited this blog. (I followed a link over from Racialicious.) I am very sad to read of many of the comments to this and the original post.

First, many folks here seem to be purposefully ignoring statistical facts, for example reciting over and over again the magical "70%" figure even though it was based on an exit poll of less than 250 Black people and is in contrast to every other, more statistically sound poll on the issue. I suppose facts do not matter since "everybody knows" that Black folks are more homophobic than everyone and anyone else--by virtue of us just being Black, apparently. (Not based on the same demographic factors--age, education/income level, religiosity, etc--as everyone else.)

Second, the implication that I have read from some of these comments that voting for a man who self identifies as Black is a favor that was given to "The Black Community," and that Blacks have betrayed by not voting against Prop 8 and other draconian referenda is just bizarre. I would hope that the LGBT folks who voted for Barack Obama did so because they wanted him to be the President--just as the, by some reports, 27% who voted for Sen McCain did so on the basis of their political convictions.

Third, the notion that Black people or any other group of people will have a magical ability to automatically understand the oppression of others because they themselves experience it just goes against human psychology. Surely Black people are humans and individuals. Those of us who are also heterosexual are subject to the same biases, homophobia, heterosexist privilege and the same influence of institutional heteronormativity as anyone else. It would seem to me, then, that "revenge" is not the most effective strategy to employ to change hearts and minds.

Surely any LGBT folks who could now sling the n-word around at rallies or employ other of racist memes that other groups have been using for hundreds of years did not suddenly become racist last Wednesday. And surely marriage equality movements that do not actively recognize intersectionality will suffer the same fate as some mainstream feminist movements that seem to have similar blindspots.

This election has made me more politically active than I have ever been in my life. News about the passage of Prop 8 and similar measures has prompted me to seek out more information on how to become more active in this and other progressive causes. I will not let the comments on these threads dismay me or make me hesitant to find ways to get involved, even as hurtful as many of them are.

All the best to all here as you continue to find ways to channel your anger and frustration into effective coalition building and future progress.

Posted by Yvette | November 11, 2008 7:23 AM

Seriously, Savage, grow up! I asked you to consider the way that your careless posts on this subject have fueled a racist firestorm in the comments section of the SLOG and all you can do is pitch sarcasm and express your own sense of victimization? I am still waiting for you to say, "These comments are outrageous and have to stop!" No one is blaming gays for the passage of Prop 8, and no one said you were the only one blaming black people. We've just said that placing blame like this is simplistic, unproductive, and likely to deepen divisions between white gay leadership and LGBT people of color. If you can't take that kind of mild criticism with a modicum of dignity, you're really not fit to edit the paper.

Posted by Stephanie | November 11, 2008 7:58 AM

I am still waiting for you to say, "These comments are outrageous and have to stop!"

Maybe he doesn't believe in censorship. Looking over the comments I see nothing that is truely disturbing. Some people, such as yourself, seem to have a very low tolerence for listening to people who view things different than yourself and seem to expect anything that doesn't conform to your narrow definition of "acceptable" be treated as though it were hate speech.

If you can't take that kind of mild criticism with a modicum of dignity, you're really not fit to edit the paper.

Dan was able to take criticism, apparently it is you that needs to threaten someones job in order to make them afraid to criticize others. You claim is that this should not have been addressed. That is your opinion, apparently many people, including Dan disagree. And if you are not capable of respecting this without threatening someone's job it is YOU that lacks even a modicum of dignity. Take your histrionics somewhere else.

Posted by sam | November 11, 2008 12:42 PM

Dan helped to fuel this firestorm with his mindless race baiting. There are plenty of questions as to the validity of that exit poll on which he is basing his miraculous discovery of black homophobia. There isn't a chance in hell that black people were 10% of the electorate as anyone who can add and subtract and stop to think can figure out for himself or herself

Savage hasn't accepted any criticism. My sense is he never does. If you haven't found anything truly disturbing or race baiting, you're not paying attention or have selective vision.

Savage is a simple minded propagandist who has found a convenient scapegoat. No one is claiming that any particular issue shouldn't be addrssed. Its the intellectually lazy and morally reprehensible way he chosen to construct the issue (really constructing a straw man is more like it) that people object to.

Posted by HDS | November 11, 2008 1:53 PM

Add Your Comments

Please click Post only once.