Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Obama, Obama... | Good News »

Friday, February 29, 2008

Obama Confronts African American Crowd on Gay Rights

posted by on February 29 at 9:11 AM


Okay, Obama went on the Pat Robertson’s hateful little cable network too, just like Hillary—bad marks for both on that score. But in addition to releasing an open letter to gays and lesbians yesterday, Obama also went out of his way to confront a largely black crowd on its homophobia.

Obama’s rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.

An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes—race, gender, etc.—that shouldn’t trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

So he took a different tack:

“Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday,” he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers. “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian,” he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

I haven’t seen a tape of the event, but it seems clear that Obama went beyond the call of duty in Beaumont yesterday. Asked about gay rights, he began his answer with an anti-gay rights rhetorical formulation popular with religious bigots everywhere: the Ken Hutchersons of the world argue that anti-discrimination laws should apply only to “immutable” characteristics like race and gender. (Never mind that religious belief is a highly mutable characteristicespecially in the United States—and discrimination against people on the basis of religion is illegal.) And when Obama said we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of race, the largely African American crowd cheered; when he said we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, the crowd cheered; and when he said we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the crowd sat silent.

Obama could have moved on here, hurrying off to his next point, returning to some safer piece of ground. Obama, being a Democrat, said what he had to say about gay rights; basically, “I’m for ‘em, even if makes some people that are for me uncomfortable.” A lot of politicians, having done the bare minimum for the gays, would have refrained from pressing the point, and opted to quickly toss out something to get the crowd cheering again. But Obama didn’t do that. He took in the crowd’s silence, recognized it for what it was (an expression of bigotry), and proceeded to challenge the largely African American crowd its homophobia—and he did it using explicitly religious language.

Back to Politico…

The moment reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a senior figure in the national gay rights movement, who noted that Obama’s deference to some black Christian discomfort with homosexuality—his refusal to dump the “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin from a tour—angered some gays and lesbians; but conversely, that his ability to sell gay rights in the black church is unique and appealing.

But Obama isn’t just able to sell gay rights to blacks that have been exposed to the virulent homophobia peddled by African American churches. He seems willing to do it—and willing to do it at a particularly crucial stage in the campaign.

I’m impressed. I’m used to seeing viable Democratic presidential candidates give us a little lip service, a little hushed support around the margins—maybe a speech at the HRC dinner, maybe a quick mention during the general election. But never before has a Democratic candidate on the verge of winning the nomination risked votes by coming out so strongly and so publicly for gay rights.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan on Obama’s stand yesterday

It’s time to be candid about this—because gay voters, in my judgment, could make the difference in Ohio and Texas and Vermont and Rhode Island. There are very large gay communities in Texas’ cities, and Ohio has the sixth largest gay community in the country. A plea: Do not sleep-walk into that voting booth with vague good feelings about the Clintons. Walk into that booth with eyes open and see what gay people have in front of them….

Yes, the McClurkin flap was poorly handled and a casualty of the usual gay-straight tensions in the African American south. But it is overwhelmed by Obama’s clear support and understanding of gay people and willingness to support our dignity at times and in places where others have not. I’ve seen it unprompted in private and unapologetically in public. I never saw it in the Clinton years, and Clinton herself is a victim of the defensive crouch that has immobilized progress at the national level for a decade or more….

What Obama is doing on the gay issue has the potential transform it and help us as a society to move past it. No, he’s not a savior. No, we shouldn’t expect miracles. No, we should never delegate the work of our equality to anyone else. We, after all, are the ones we’ve been waiting for. But within the Democratic contest, the case for backing Obama at this point in time is, to my mind, urgent, vital, historic.

RSS icon Comments


Dan. After watching the CBN interview online that he did in November, he does the same as well. He went on there and said "I believe in Equal rights. I know it may turn away potential voters but I want to show that I'm fair towards everyone". Well not in those exact words. but the first sentence was verbatim. Now, I applaud any politician that goes on CBN and says he believes and supports gays.

I don't know if I want to say "shame on him" because this was back in November and quite frankly not many people knew about him and if they did, there was a ton of lies going around about him, as there is now(ex. him being a muslim). So here we have the possibility of having the first Xtian president, who happens to be black, that supports gays.

Posted by apres_moi | February 29, 2008 9:20 AM

I can say I am pretty happy that Obama did this AND he can shore up the support for us gays now before he will not be able to talk about it later on in the general election.

Posted by Andrew | February 29, 2008 9:23 AM

if he keeps this up he'll beat mccain like a leathery old drum.

Posted by max solomon | February 29, 2008 9:24 AM

Quick ECB! Spin this to make Obama look bad! I know you can do it!

Posted by Mike | February 29, 2008 9:25 AM

The majority of the black constituency is more homophobic than the white. Why is this?

Posted by hmm | February 29, 2008 9:27 AM

The blacks hate us.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 29, 2008 9:27 AM
And when Obama said we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of race, the largely African American crowd cheered; when he said we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, the crowd cheered; and when he said we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the crowd sat silent.

But but but ... he failed to inspire enough actual booing! This conclusively proves he doesn't care that much! Sorry, not my candidate. I'm sitting it out in November.

Posted by tsm | February 29, 2008 9:28 AM

Love me some Obama!

Posted by catnextdoor | February 29, 2008 9:29 AM

The blacks hate black gay people more than they hate pasty-faced pansies like us, Mr. Poe. And the African American community pays a steep price for this relentless gay hatred. HIV infection rates in the black community are as high as they are as a result of, yes, poverty, lack of access to medical care, etc., but also because most ubran African American gay men can't live openly on account of the toxic homophobia stoked by African American churches.

Posted by Dan Savage | February 29, 2008 9:33 AM

@6 seems to speak as if black and gays are two separate entities... ahem...

Posted by Andy Niable | February 29, 2008 9:34 AM

We can rest assured that most of the crowd will be behind bars soon. Then they'll learn.

Posted by pencil riot | February 29, 2008 9:34 AM

Smells like leadership.

Posted by DOUG. | February 29, 2008 9:34 AM

Go Obama go!

Posted by sprizee | February 29, 2008 9:35 AM

obama is starting to grow on me, but andrew sullivan and slog posters are not helping. i think i'll stay away until this thing is decided.

Posted by um | February 29, 2008 9:37 AM

"Vital, historic" indeed. That's real leadership; if you don't see it, it's because you're too young to have seen leadership before. That's the kind of thing that makes me want to STAND UP. It's beautiful. People: THIS is how you change people's minds.

Posted by Fnarf | February 29, 2008 9:41 AM

@ 5,

When some people feel marginalized and victimized by society, their impulse is to bully and berate those with even less social power; it gives them a false sense of control.

Combine that with the fear, paranoia and hostility towards others that are the norm in American society and minority bigots are the result.

Posted by Original Andrew | February 29, 2008 9:44 AM

Yes, Dan @9, and I'll remind us all that Obama confronted this issue last MLK day to King's own home church, Ebenezer Baptist. Why? Was there some secret cache of gay votes or queer campaign funds there? No. It showed political courage and integrity.

Someone please name for me a similar situation, an audience NOT of predominately Gay and/or Gay-Friendly Campaign Donors and Voters, where Senator Clinton has demonstrated an equivalent political conviction?

I'm exasperatedly amused that we're reaching a point of debating not IF Obama support rights, but if he does so ENOUGH and in the EXACTLY THE RIGHT WAYS according to our individual preferences.

Jesus Christ, what more does the man have to do to show he's for us without totally sinking his campaign with the rest of the electorate? I challenge anyone to please name for me something MORE dramatic that wouldn't COST him more votes (and the election) than it would gain him in integrity.

Preaching to the Human Rights Campaign Fund Choir is one thing, but to a community that should understand civil rights struggle but might still need encouragement to see the parallels, someone to bridge the gap, that's another.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 29, 2008 9:44 AM
But never before has a Democratic candidate on the verge of winning the nomination risked votes by coming out so strongly and so publicly for gay rights.

You call that coming out strongly and publicly for gay rights? Dude. Welcome to the revolution of lowered expectations.

I mean, don't get me wrong. What he did was nice and everything, but it was hardly the kind of barbaric yawp he'd sound if a crowd got quiet like that when he mentioned ethnic civil rights. And that's what gay rights deserve, is someone who will come out swinging when confronted by an open expression of bigotry -- not fall back to some soft-sell about how it's not very Christian to dis the queers. His "explicitly religious terms" basically relegates queers to the sociopolitical status of Biblical lepers: they're gross, but the Christian thing to do is to treat them with forbearance.

Which, you know, fuck that.

So yes, it's nice that he didn't back down. But neither did he "come out strongly" for anything.

Posted by Judah | February 29, 2008 9:50 AM

I, too, anxiously await ECB's take on why this reflects badly on Obama.

Posted by also | February 29, 2008 9:51 AM

Nice post, Dan. Obama seems to be really growing as the campaign proceeds. It's great to have two strong leaders from which to choose.

But quit quoting Sullivan. He's a tool. And his comments here add nothing to the debate.

Posted by Big Sven | February 29, 2008 9:51 AM

Poe & Dan, I'm black AND gay. Needless to say that my religious family (dad was a preacher) wasn't exactly enamored of gays. However, after I came out to them, they eventually came around. Now, they have no problems with gays at all. It is interesting that I face racism in the gay community, regardless of where I live in this country. But I am able to openly discuss my sexuality among blacks. It's going to take a lot more blacks coming out to turn the tide though.

Posted by Tony | February 29, 2008 9:56 AM


All true.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 29, 2008 9:57 AM


Judah, politics is always a balancing act between your friends and your enemies, but mostly about convincing that huge mass of "undecided" voters who are the ones who actually DECIDE presidential elections.

If Obama put all his pro-gay convictions out there and "come out swinging", if he waved a rainbow flag from the corner of Catro and Market, went on The Big Gay Sketch Show, and whatever would satisfy your expectations without "lowering" them, exactly how fast do you think his chances of winning the election, much less the nomination, would plummet?

He's swinging as much as one can while still managing a viable candidacy in this racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, colonialist country. Give the man some credit, and keep encouraging him to be bold, please.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 29, 2008 10:01 AM

@4 and @19... here I am feeling all warm and fuzzy from this post and, then in the comments there are people bashing ECB for supporting Hillary. Why don't you just enjoy the fact that this seems like a truly great moment for Obama?

Posted by Grow up | February 29, 2008 10:05 AM

@24: Have you noticed the amount of smearing of him she does here? She doesn't just support Hillary, she actively attacks Obama, often with factual inaccuracies.

Posted by Mike | February 29, 2008 10:08 AM

People like to disparage "blacks," generally en masse and without qualification, as hostile to gays, but I think if you controlled for socioeconomic status the differences between black and white opinions on gays would shrink drastically. Explicit, religiously-themed homophobia seems to be primarily a lower-class phenomenon—which is why you rarely see anti-gay rhetoric coming from middle-class black churches. In fact, just looking at the middle class, I'd bet you're much more likely to see it from white (evangelical) churches that take their cues from Dobson, Robertson, etc.

Posted by shub-negrorath | February 29, 2008 10:14 AM


What's that you say? America isn't ready for queer civil rights, so we shouldn't expect a presidential candidate to take a leadership role on the issue?

You know, I'm reminded of an oft-recounted conversation between MLK and LBJ, where LBJ was telling MLK that the country wasn't ready for black civil rights, and that King should just hold back and let LBJ ease the nation into the idea that black people deserved to eat at Woolworth's. King said that African Americans had waited long enough, and Johnson was ultimately convinced to back King's play.

I don't guess we'll have any principled stands like that in the newer more realistic Democratic party because, for one thing, people like you and Dan don't demand them.

And the thing is, maybe you're right: maybe this weak-ass shit is the best we can expect. But let's please not bullshit ourselves about what we're getting, just because it's all we have.

Posted by Judah | February 29, 2008 10:14 AM

Vote for Hillary- otherwise, a black man will break into your home and turn your children gay!

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | February 29, 2008 10:16 AM

boo... YA! This got me all warm and fuzzy.

My question is no matter what the outcome of the Dem primary are they gearing up enough to take on the Republicans? I'm nervous that we wont have enough bullets in the clip to make it through nov.

Posted by drew | February 29, 2008 10:18 AM

Please, please; no guns-and-ammo metaphors when discussing either potential Dem nominee. Thanks.

Posted by Dan Savage | February 29, 2008 10:22 AM

You're so sensitive, Dan.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 29, 2008 10:25 AM

To be fair, Judah, I believe the main point is that the extent to which he's come out in support of gay rights is wholly unprecedented for someone in his position.

You can be unhappy that he didn't go as far as you thought he should, but you should at least view this as a sign of progress. We (as a country) are still very far from the finish line on this issue, but Obama is taking some significant strides toward it.

Posted by Hernandez | February 29, 2008 10:28 AM

@27... I think there's a difference between a candidate and a sitting President in terms of how far they can go on supporting this issue. Ideal situation in my mind is that he continues to do things like this as a candidate (which are admittedly, not exactly radical, but still, uh, hope-inspiring) and then, as President, takes real action about things like Don't Ask Don't Tell and marriage equality.

As a realist, I know that he won'te be elected if he completely alienates all of the homophobes and/or "Chistian values voters" in this country. He has given us every indiciation that once elected, he will prioritize issues that are important to gays.

Posted by Julie | February 29, 2008 10:33 AM

@24: Other people were doing a good job celebrating Obama. I just always love these posts where you think "wow, there's really no downside here" because you just *know* ECB will show up and find some innovative angle for why this *proves* Obama is a terrible candidate.

Call it a little light entertainment in the midst of the general (and appropriate) love fest.

Posted by also | February 29, 2008 10:37 AM

See, this is the difference between Hils passive-aggressive "triangulation" that results in no change (or worse change) and Obama's dealing with issues in a way that includes and embraces all the perspectives.

He'll be a great President, and Dodd or Richardson will be a great VP, especially when they nominate her for the US Supreme Court.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 29, 2008 10:37 AM

Yes yes, we're all realists. My point is just that Obama's little crack about dissing the queers not being very Christian is hardly "I have a fucking dream," a'ight?

Nice, yes. "Exciting"; not particularly. I'll still vote for the guy, he still warms the cockles of my little black fucking heart, but even once he's elected I'm pretty much expecting another round of don't-ask-don't-tell and "oh, the country's not ready for civil unions, let alone gay marriage". That's all I'm saying.

Posted by Judah | February 29, 2008 10:48 AM

From experience the most important thing to do is gin up the gay rights issues and in particular gay marriage because those are the issues that will bring a Dem victory in November.

Bringing out the far right voters that don't like McCain will help Ombama win in the red states and the swing states. Maybe a few gay marriage petitions should be on the ballot in key states.

Posted by mcg | February 29, 2008 10:53 AM
That's the video, I think. I haven't watched it all the way through, but the time and place match.

Posted by Mr Fuzzy | February 29, 2008 11:01 AM

You know, I used to not really like ECB because of how strident she was about transit issues, but the more you yahoos rip on her for daring to advocate passionately for Clinton the more I like her.


Have you noticed the amount of smearing of him she does here? She doesn't just support Hillary, she actively attacks Obama, often with factual inaccuracies.

Oh, bullshit. She posts aggressively partisan interpretations, it's true, but not outright inaccuracies. And she's just attempting to give some semblance of balance to a SLOG board dominated by deeply partisan Obama supporters. This thing Dan posted is really cool, but often times there will be a half dozen Obama campaign parrotings a day around here.

If it wasn't for ECB the SLOG political commentary would be a boring echo chamber.


I just always love these posts where you think "wow, there's really no downside here" because you just *know* ECB will show up and find some innovative angle for why this *proves* Obama is a terrible candidate.

Funny, I always love how I'll read a really great Obama post, like Dan's, and I'll wonder if maybe now it's time for me to finally change over, but by the end of the comments I'm so annoyed by the Obama fanatics that I feel super duper partisan.

Nice strawman. She's never said he was a terrible candidate. Nor have most of us Clinton supporters. She just thinks Clinton is better. And the fact that we Clinton supporters haven't rolled over bugs some of you no end.

Posted by Big Sven | February 29, 2008 11:02 AM

@ 36 - One important difference: MLK never ran for President. A real MLK for gay rights will be a citizen-advocate, not a politician. And hopefully work with President Obama to get work done.

Posted by David | February 29, 2008 11:03 AM

Nevermind, the video I posted wasn't the video. I apologize to anyone who wasted their time watching it.

Posted by Mr Fuzzy | February 29, 2008 11:12 AM

Whatever. The real test is his behavior AFTER THE NOMINATION. He's pretty much got the Democratic nomination in the bag, and, let's face it, he's not going to alienate very many black supporters with his tepid defense of gay rights, no matter how virulently homophobic they are. My guess is he clams up pretty damn quick when he's faced with the actual election. Can't drive the Religious Right out to vote by defending gay rights (which, again, is understandable I suppose). So maybe I should have said the real test is what he does in office - after all, politicians lie outrageously all the time. Just because it's now safer to mention gay rights doesn't necessarily mean it's not just lip service.

Posted by Ugh | February 29, 2008 11:17 AM

Obama's actions in these instances help me support him as a candidate (as opposed to merely vote for), despite his lack of specificity.

Why do so many african americans have homophobic beliefs? one contributing factor might be that because so many african american men have been incarcerated and thereby exposed to, victimized by or participated in prison rape,and/or sex not of their choosing, many might project the fear, shame and anger of their experiences onto those who are gay as a way of distancing themselves from their experiences.

Posted by LMSW | February 29, 2008 11:19 AM

@42 - This IS the actual election. Even though the nomination isn't yet a done deal, he's very much in the national media limelight and already taking hits from McCain and the GOP. Anything he says now is going to get taped & replayed & used in Republican attack ads in the general. It's not like you get a clean slate as soon as the nomination happens - everything he's saying now is fair game for hate-baiting in the general.

Posted by David | February 29, 2008 11:26 AM

Obama's support for sexual minorities is both principled and politically astute.

One's attitude toward homosexuality is a litmus test for young voters. It's a generational marker. It's an indication that a candidate "gets it." Young people in this country will interpret Obama's openness to gay issues in this light. It will energize their support.

This is brilliant, transformational politics. Clinton and McCain have nothing that can match it.

Posted by CCSea | February 29, 2008 11:36 AM

@44 - yeah right. The final candidates will basically be campaigning 24/7. The news is constantly overloaded with new election "news." Like they'll play 5-month old soundbytes. How much old election news are you seeing in the media now? That's right, none. It's cald 'news' and not 'olds' for a reason, and nothing he's saying is so controversial it'll plague him in the future.

Posted by Ugh | February 29, 2008 11:47 AM

This has been one of the more productive and insightful comment threads I have seen. Personally, I am thrilled with the potential that is there with Obama. People are opening up to new perspectives all over the country. I love how Obama put the burden of their silence back on the audience by confronting the with a bind of their own beliefs. We need more of this.

Posted by wiseblood | February 29, 2008 11:49 AM

Oh yeah... for the record "Obama Makes Me Gay"

Posted by wiseblood | February 29, 2008 11:59 AM

it's beginning to seem like these kinds of "bold" statements are a GOOD thing for a candidate, rather than political suicide, which had been the prevailing assumption for so long. obama is just the first candidate who is smart enough to realize this. right now, this is what the american people want to hear.

Posted by brandon | February 29, 2008 12:15 PM

I'm pleased with Obama's courage here. Sort of a reverse Sister Souljah. But no one should listen to a word Andrew Sullivan says, let alone quote him. He hates the Clintons with a pathological passion. I wouldn't be surprised if, once he has gotten over the thrill of Barack defeating Hillary, he "struggles" to decide between McCain and Obama, and "reluctantly" backs the warmonger.

Posted by bobbo | February 29, 2008 12:29 PM

I like Obama, and I agree that his statements went beyond what I typically hear from mainstream democratic candidates. But I don't hold out too much hope.

I remember when Clinton first ran. He was, at the time, very progressive on gay rights. He was the first mainstream national politician to advocate integrating gays into the military. And this was during his first campaign, during both the primary and general elections. I had only recently left the military myself back then, and was thrilled beyond words. Yet we ended up with the weak and counterproductive "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Even with a democratic majority in the house and senate, he compromised our rights away. And bowing to political pressure, he later signed the "Defense of marriage" act. Despite his supportive rhetoric during the campaigns, he ended up not being a particularly good friend to the gays.

So I have to wonder if Obama gets elected, will he have the will and the support to follow through on his convictions? Or will he cave in like Clinton, and compromise on our rights?

This is one reason why I'm even less enthused over Hillary. She was with Bill the whole time he compromised the first time. She has given no indication that she is any more likely to support us than Bill was.

I will happily vote for either Obama or Hillary over McCain. But I don't hold any illusion that Obama will actually succeed in reversing DADT or DOMA, and I doubt Hillary would even try very hard.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | February 29, 2008 1:43 PM

Typical Churchy type African Americans.

They are real homophobes. Leviticus whackos.

And half of them are on the down low.


Posted by Tom3 | February 29, 2008 2:47 PM

good for you Dan ! thanks for a good article.
As far as the "why is there so much hatred for us in the black community?" question, it is complex and fraught with sensitive areas. having said that, I think that (broadly speaking) the homophobia in the AfricanAmerican community stems from the history of degradation by whites (referring to adult black men as "boy" etc.) and builds to a need to resoundingly assert masculinity (a narrow view of masculinity) and it represents a sort of machismo. This also explains much of the sexism seen in hip hop videos and the like. It's an overcompensation and that tips into outright hate , at times. It manifests in many ways, but most potently in churches .
He is brave and wonderful for confronting it head on. When I heard him say something similar at Ebenezer Baptist (the video is on youtube) , that's when he got my vote.

Posted by dantro | February 29, 2008 2:53 PM

"People like to disparage "blacks," generally en masse and without qualification, as hostile to gays, but I think if you controlled for socioeconomic status the differences between black and white opinions on gays would shrink drastically. Explicit, religiously-themed homophobia seems to be primarily a lower-class phenomenon—which is why you rarely see anti-gay rhetoric coming from middle-class black churches. In fact, just looking at the middle class, I'd bet you're much more likely to see it from white (evangelical) churches that take their cues from Dobson, Robertson, etc"

@26 Thank you.

Posted by Harris | February 29, 2008 3:27 PM

Sven, you are turned away from supporting Obama becuase of SLOG posters? Why don't you go to Taylor Marsh's site and see some of the wackos who hate him there. It will even things out, and then you can base your support on things like merit. Are you one of these people who supports Clinton because the VRWC hated her? I was, until I started researching the candidates' voting records, listening to their speeches, etc. Then that VRWC stuff faded into its proper perspective.

Posted by Phoebe | March 1, 2008 3:09 AM


Your argument is about choosing which candidate you think should be President. I did that, based on policy, merit, and pragmatism, and supported Hillary at the WA caucuses.

My argument is about my coming to terms with the fact that my candidate, who I *love*, is getting her ass handed to her and has no chance now of winning the endorsement. There are days where I feel ready to throw in the towel and just get on the Obama bus, especially when he does something super awesome like Dan mentioned, and then I see some of the other people on the bus, and I think "nah, I'll wait a little longer."

But it doesn't matter what I do or think. She's not going to win another major contest (well, maybe OH). So I can afford to sulk and post snarky comments a little while longer without hurting anybody.

Posted by Big Sven | March 1, 2008 4:25 PM

OH so today as I am sitting in our club house I over hear two older black men discussing Obama. They are talking about him not understanding the struggles of the black man because it is not really black. I have no idea if they plan to vote for him if he is the one running or not. This is old man republican country. Equal stupidity with white and black folk.

Posted by Wifnoe | March 1, 2008 7:41 PM

@56: I'm just frustrated because it seems increasingly likely that Barack will be the Democratic candidate and yet supporters of other Democratic candidates are still actively attempting to make him look bad.

I agree with trying to win the nomination no matter how tenuous your chances are, but should it really be done at the expense of your party?

Posted by Mike | March 3, 2008 7:43 AM


I guess I haven't seen HRC do anything that I think weakens Obama or our chances of winning in the fall. I think lots of Democrats are on guard for this, regardless of who they support.

Note: if it were to turn out that her staff had sent the "turban photos", as Matt Drudge claims, I would consider that totally inappropriate and would change my support. But she says she didn't do it, the AP already had the pics, and Matt Drudge is a Republican dick.

Posted by Big Sven | March 3, 2008 10:12 AM

Big Sven@59: Fair enough. I think I might feel about HRC supporters like you do about Obama supporters. They both get a little riled up sometimes and seem to lose perspective on the big picture.

Posted by Mike | March 3, 2008 10:53 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).