Clinton Gets It
01 June 2009 7:01 pm by kris
After reading article after article about what is taking place with gay people in the Mid East, the silence of the Obama Administration was overwhelming to me.
Thank you SOS Clinton for the courage to speak to this issue when others around you won’t.
This post was submitted by kris.
Hillary is carrying the water.
Righton!
Clinton Gets It
01 June 2009 7:01 pm by kris
“Thank you SOS Clinton for the courage to speak to this issue when others around you won’t. The silence of the Obama Administration was overwhelming to me.”
from your link:
“The Obama administration broke with that of George W. Bush to support a United Nations resolution calling for decriminalization of homosexuality, which is currently punishable by death in seven countries.
“President Barack Obama has proclaimed June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”
_____
why the intimation that “Hillary” gets it” and “Obama doesn’t?”
your own link seems to indicate a coordinated effort.
Is it just reflexive now? Hillary good, Obama bad? Enough.
geot-
Obama has not once discussed the increasing murder of gay men in the Mid East. NOT ONCE.
The gay community in this country questions his commitment to civil rights and equality for gay people in this country.
ENOUGH of everytime anyone implies a criticism of Obama and uses Hillary in the same sentence you always immediately jump to the Hillary good Obama bad crap. ENOUGH OF THAT.
And wow – gay and lesbian month. That’s really something.
This is not an Obama is bad Hillary is good remark rather a statement of fact,she is more progressive on social issues than he has shown himself to be.
Obama avoided any support or contact with the gay community during his campaign to the point of not allowing himself to be photographed with them. I suspect it might be that he is always thinking about the independents and Obama Republicans that were part of his winning numbers more than any personal bias.
I think Lake Lady is absolutely right. Giving Hillary credit for doing something that will get her nailed by the Republicans and extreme right wing is nothing more than that. It would seem that Obama has long ago made a political decision the he thinks will bode him well and perhaps allow him to use his political capital in another area.
Obama knew exactly what he was doing with the Donnie M gospel tour, he knows what he’s doing in this as well.
GeoT, now I’m curious. The LGBT Pride proclamation is mentioned as being released in the story about Hillary Clinton’s statements; but I can’t find reference to it on MSNBC.com, cnn.com, cbsnews.com or abcnews.com. I found one reference in the Caucus/blog and none in Washington Post.
I find that the President puts forth a Proclamation like that and there is NO MSM news coverage as of this time peculiar to say the least.
kris says:
01 June 2009 at 7:47 pm
Hillary is IN the Obama administration. My objection is assigning the advanced thinking to her DESPITE him. It’s accomplishing nothing. They work TOGETHER.
Everything I posted was from YOUR link Kris. Gay and Lesbian month is a bad thing? You posted it.
What Hillary did is because she is a part of the Obama administration not as you say: despite of the “the silence of the Obama Administration”
When she speaks she is speaking as part of his team.
djjl:
the link is Kris’s link, not mine,
djjl says:
01 June 2009 at 8:25 pm
I think Lake Lady is absolutely right. Giving Hillary credit for doing something that will get her nailed by the Republicans and extreme right wing is nothing more than that. It would seem that Obama has long ago made a political decision the he thinks will bode him well and perhaps allow him to use his political capital in another area
_____
what? He’s letting her get credit for the comments so he doesn’t have to take the heat, so she’ll get blasted from the right on an unpopular issue? This is calculated on his (Obama’s) part and he’s done it before? Let Hillary be the “Ambassador to Gay?” That’s your theory? I just want to wrap my mind around this.
GeoT
Reread what I wrote. Everything is not a slam. I think I said he could use his political capital inanother area by letting Hillary carry the water on an issue that might be too costly to him. Remember the goall is to accomplish. You might recall that I said a couple of days back when Hillary announced State Department benefits coverage for GLTB, that there wasn’t a chance that decision was made a/ without Obama’ support.
djjl says:
01 June 2009 at 9:02 pm
thanks for the clarification… “carrying the water” by itself is open to a number of different interpretations.
If she’s doing it willingly it’s a strategy, if it’s being forced on her she’s being used unfairly.
While it certainly is an improvement to have the President of the US of A declare June to be Gay month, this is something that we have handled quite nicely for about 40 years without the blessing of the straight world.
The old saying applies to BO and his “support”, a day late and a dollar short.
— still waiting for real change.
I don’t think is having anything forced on her. I’ m sure shevis happyvto do that in which she believes.
I still think it is peculiar that such a Proclamation would receive no MSM coverage and only be mentioned, at this point, on blogs.
ir was just released:
President signs LGBT Pride Month Proclamation
FROM A NEWS RELEASE
June 1, 2009
A PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ( LGBT ) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.
LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.
Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.
The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.
My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.
These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=21317
Don’t you think it’s odd that a Presidential Proclamation of such significance would be released after the 5:00 pm news cycle?
I just checked WaPo,NYT,MSNBC again. Nothing. I guess they don’t have a connection to WH Proclamations.
http://tinyurl.com/nl5gjo
The Obama Infatuation
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, June 1, 2009
“The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time.
snip
The infatuation matters because Obama’s ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health-care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That’s well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.
snip
The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.
Mostly, it isn’t. The idea of a “critical” Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.
Obama’s rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship — and also enact a highly partisan agenda; both couldn’t be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health-care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes “fiscal responsibility” when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.
snip
But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: Most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he’s a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don’t want to see the first African American president fail.
snip
The press has become Obama’s silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage. “
Hey djjl~
I agree with some of this article but it misses something with our weak and incompetent MSM they worship power.They did the same thing with Bush. Where was their skeptisism on the war on the loss of privacy,on Gitmo,on military contracting fraud? I could go on and on.
The recent Supreme Court kerfluffle is a prime example of their ignorance and laziness. I have not heard ONE intelligent discussion on the topic yet.
About BO’s “historic” proclamation.
See this article at the Washington Blade: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm? log_id=25608#comments
An excerpt from the article:
“The statement, which can downloaded here, marks the first time in eight years that the White House has officially commemorated Pride. Former President Clinton made such proclamations in 1999 and 2000; the Bush administration did not continue the practice”
From the comments to the WashBlade article:
President Clinton nominated John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, was confirmed within the 100 days.
Seems like BO is not quite the groundbreaker that he tells us he is.
Still waiting for all the fierce advocacy to take the form of actions instead of just rhetoric.
Pooh…my timing has been so bad lately I never get to go back and forth with anyone.:(
I am going to go and read the NY Times Magazine piece on WJC.
AliceP
I think you have a point. He would probably say he can’t draw fire right now before healthcare reform.
Lake Lady
Real reporting is dying if not dead. It has been dying since the media business model decided news belonged under the entertainment division.
JUST RELEASED DJJL
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
POTUS Honors LGBT Pride Month by Not Supporting Same Sex Marriage, While Cheney Disagrees
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/potus-honors-lgbt-pride-month-by-not-supporting-same-sex-marriage-while-cheney-disagrees.html
_____
USA Today
President hails gay pride month
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/06/67521623/1
(MANY more examples)
______
AliceP:
“Seems like BO is not quite the groundbreaker that he tells us he is.”
______
he’s an SOB. BO that is.
My take? MUCH positive in the works.. that’s a good thing.
Thanks AliceP. No wonder it isn’t newsworthy.
Hmmmm. So if it’s not newsworthy that Obama issued the proclamation, would it have been newsworthy if it had not?
AliceP says:
01 June 2009 at 10:01 pm
About BO’s “historic” proclamation.
See this article at the Washington Blade: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm? log_id=25608#comments
President Clinton nominated John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, was confirmed within the 100 days.
_______
Berry was actually “Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget” under Clinton
and NOW serves as “Director of the Office of Personnel Management.” in the Obama Admin.
____
I’m not sure he was confirmed by the SENATE in his Clinton position.
I’m signing off this train.. good night.
ogenec
It simply isn’t some earth shattering, grand, announcement that some apparently wanted to see it as. I’m glad he did it. It’s good that he followed in President William Jefferson’s courageous footsteps.
As I’ve said before, this President does not walk on water. He is and has not been courageous on this particular issue. In fact he’s been cynical as shown during the primary. But of course he wanted to win and was willing to do what it took.
He won. I think he’s doing almost as good a job as Michelle. I want him to succeed. Some of you are a little to thin skinned when you perceive any criticism of Obama. That is not in our best interest. Get over the love affair.
ogenec says:
01 June 2009 at 10:24 pm
Hmmmm. So if it’s not newsworthy that Obama issued the proclamation, would it have been newsworthy if it had not?
When Bush refused to issue the proclamation his first year in office, it was in the news (no links to offer, just my memory).
Some of you are a little to thin skinned when you perceive any criticism of Obama. That is not in our best interest. Get over the love affair.
Spot on.
Taylor,
Thanks for the support on that issue. I just find it wearying. At times it causes me to not take seriously comments from posters that I otherwise would.
A request for everyone reading this thread -
Please go to GeoT’s 9:26 post with BO’s great proclamation in it.
Then read it, but substitute the word: LGBT with the word African-American and see how it reads.
Paragraph 2 is annoying enough, it reads a little like, “I’ve got lots of gay friends – they’re OK!”
But to me the real nasty paragraph is this one:
“Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.”
BO is right, the amount of openness and fairness that exists in our country today is a direct result of the LGBT movement since Stonewall – NOT BECAUSE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OR ANY POLITICIANS WHO ATTEND PRIDE JUST TO GET US TO VOTE FOR THEM.
He then makes a self-congratulatory statement (I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration) that is probably not true, and THEN makes this incredibly patronizing statement:
“These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.”
Try reading it this way:
These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — African-American employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.”
I guess we’re supposed to feel like this is all somehow a great affirmation from BO – I’m sorry, but I see it as him taking credit for something he has nothing to do with.
And I find the use of “openly-LGBT” to be offensive. He’s “celebrating” openness (ie – not closeted), but as commander in chief, his military is discharging servicemen and women who are living under DADT. The large majority of LGBT people in this county do not live with the same freedom and openness as straight people. Openness can be very risky and can jepordize your job, standing in your community, finances, health and safety.
Instead of just writing this in a proclamation, he should actually do something to improve the situation – for every LGBT person.
djjl – Honestly, I really try not to weigh in on these things while reading. I rarely fails to stop the back and forth. But sometimes it’s just a must. It happened in a thread below as well.
This is not a frickin’ echo chamber.
Dissent is required to have a debate.
I just don’t want people like you and others to feel intimidated that Obama cannot be criticized.
It’s happening across the traditional media and new media, including in comments.
Oh, c’mon. This charge is completely wrong. And infantile. Just today, i posted a thread expressing skepticism of Obama’s economic policies. So the “love affair” charge is complete bullshit.
Clinton bequeathed us DADT and DOMA. But djjl lauds his “courage” on DADT issues. I don’t accuse her of a love affair with Clinton. I just think the facts don’t bear her contention out.
Let’s stop imputing motives and have a discussion. It’s in our “best interest” to act like grown-ups. Check the lurid accusations already.
ogenec says:
01 June 2009 at 11:11 pm
Puh-leaze. Your economic post led off with the words that you don’t like Krugman. So let’s not kid anyone on that. It’s one thing to go on about disagreeing with economic policies, but it’s quite another to pretend it’s not more about Krugman, because every time he criticizes Obama or Reagan you go off.
TM, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, I think Krugman’s partisan tendencies affect his op-eds. This is not an isolated view. At the same time, however, I’ve often written here that Obama’s economic policies cause me great angst. Krugman or no Krugman, that criticism holds.
And I’ve never held brief for reagan. Not here or anywhere else.
No it isn’t.
The Nobel committee let Krugman’s partisan tendencies slide. Lucky for him.
As for the gum and walking, ogenec, I have no doubts.
DOMA in the 1990s was/is Dem policy. Period. In fact, it still is, which Obama has no intention of doing anything to change.
I will say one thing about WJC re: DADT. The charge that he “bequeathed us” that policy is disingenuous at best and a reworking of reality at worst. We still have it, but not because WJC didn’t bring it forth. He just got his ass handed to him for trying to do it. That’s something Obama would never risk. Never. Could WJC have offered an exec. order? Sure, but he wouldn’t have had a second term. Obama has sky high approvals, plus backing from the brass, but he still doesn’t have the balls to do it.
This happens not to have anything to do with a WJC “love affair,” something I let go of in 1997, but instead, has the virtue of being true.
I was against him wading into to DADT back in the 1990s, because the powers weren’t ready. I was proved correct, as it emboldened the right, which was already hunting him.
The Nobel committee let Krugman’s partisan tendencies slide. Lucky for him.
_______________________
As ripostes go, that’s rather cute. But also besides the point.
Taylor Marsh says:
01 June 2009 at 11:28 pm
________________________________
Also besides the point. My comment did not go to a comparison of Obama and Clinton. It went to the substance of the comment that Clinton displayed courage on LGBT issues. To say that there are manifold reasons for Clinton adopting DADT and DOMA — or, if you prefer, having it forced upon him — does not detract from my position that Clinton displayed no courage on these issues. In fact, it kinda substantiates my position.
This happens not to have anything to do with a WJC “love affair,” something I let go of in 1997, but instead, has the virtue of being true.
______________________
And guess what, TM? I take you at your word. Indeed, I find the charge itself repugnant, and I would never make it, least of all against someone I do not know. All I ask is that you and other readers extend the same courtesy to me.
No it is not
I said it!
I’d like to return to the only sane postings on this thread. AliceP, I disagree with the moral equivalency argument of gay rights = African-American civil rights, for reasons previously articulated. No need to rehash them here.
That said, your post at 11:09 was very illuminating. I would have considered it a point of pride (no pun intended) that LGBT people can be more open than has previously been the case. But I think that you have the better view: that the timidity of half-measures is itself a pernicious kind of discrimination. It’s kinda like saying, look at the nice water fountains we built for African-Americans.
Thanks for posting your thoughts. It gave me something to chew on, as intelligent commentary is wont to do.
I don’t think I’ve seen you make a real “moral equivalency” argument about gay rights. I’ve seen you make a legalistic/historical (amendments to the constitution, etc).
Why don’t you just do a notepad to cut and paste your moral equivalency article when it seems some of us have missed it. Maybe it’s along the line of Donna Brazile’s feeling that elevating gay rights to such a level is an insult to black civil rights.
Kind of along the lines of some people’s rights are more important than other people’s.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/13/201990/-Donna-Brazile-marginalizing-Gays-at-the-DNC
“The Daily Politics has obtained a forwarded email from Emily Giske, a leading New York lesbian activist and a member of the Democratic National Committee, which depicts DNC official Donna Brazile and the party’s black caucus as the main obstacle to a plan to expand gay and lesbian participation in the DNC.”
That’s not the only piece I could find but it’s the only one I think necessary. Most of us remember the comments Donna B made while acting as a neutral Democratic commentator. But finally there was the cutsey coming out party:
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-from-cnns-election-center/
BROWN:I want to ask Donna something because you have been on these panels
time and time again with us as an undecided voter, and you sound very
much –
BRAZILE: I’m not undecided.
BROWN: Uncommitted?
BRAZILE: I’m undeclared.
BROWN: Undeclared. There you go.
Well it sounds very much –
Hey, no –
BRAZILE: Words matter.
BROWN: Words matter.
It sounds very much to me tonight like you have made up your mind.
Brazile spending all that TV time acting as if she were neutral.
You may think things are “besides the point,” oegenec, but that doesn’t mean they actually are to others, including myself.
One thing is clear, WJC put his neck out on DADT early on and found no support for it anywhere, starting with Colin Powell, who back in the 1990s had a lot of power. Pushing through no support including military would not have shown courage, but instead would have illustrated stupidity. Whether anyone agrees it was smart to bring it up first (I don’t) is another matter. That took courage. Clinton paid for it too, because it helped hobble him.
DOMA was a Democratic Party foundation in the 1990s. You can call it whatever you want, but political parties rarely show courage before the people. At least they haven’t over the 3 decades I’ve been in politics. That goes for leaders, which includes Clinton and Obama, but also Edwards, Hillary, etc. on DOMA. That’s where they all are on DOMA.
I think what this is usually about is just poking a finger in the eye of either Clinton.
ogenec says:
02 June 2009 at 8:24 am
My point had nothing to do with “moral equivalency”, but instead to throw the language of the proclamation into a different light and frame of reference.
And, I for one, thank you ApliceP.
I join djjll in that, too. …and thanks to kris for this thread. Lively, fun and combative!
Djjl, I’ve never made a moral equivalency argument. Others here have. I’ve said I don’t buy it, for reasons already discussed. But nice try invoking Donna Brazile.
As for TM, I’m not the one comparing Obama to Clinton. You are. I’ve only said Clinton showed no courage on LGBT issues. You say he was courageous to propose it in the first place. That’s not what takes courage, as I understand the term. Courage is doing the right thing in the face of withering opposition. He didn’t.
As for DOMA, you say that “political parties rarely show courage before the people.” Again, if you wait for the people, that’s hardly courageous. And also — if that is the standard, then no administration should be called into question for waiting for the popular will to catch up to where progressives like you happen to be.
Taylor,
Well you know what will drive the posting on a thread….a bit of anything that might in anyway be construed as a criticism of Obama. Some must not have thought others have been engaged in political discussion more than the last 2 years.
My point had nothing to do with “moral equivalency”, but instead to throw the language of the proclamation into a different light and frame of reference.
_______________________
Same difference. In other words, if you swap LGBT for AA, the injustice is made manifest. No?
ogenec
Just referencing what you said:
“AliceP, I disagree with the moral equivalency argument of gay rights = African-American civil rights, for reasons previously articulated. No need to rehash them here.”
What do you mean by “nice try” and Donna Brazile? She said what she said and did what she did.
You might want to think about your small definition of courage – it’s a perfect fit for George W Bush.
But, i for one get where you are coming from ogenec – you don’t like anything Clinton and will do all you can to cast anything said or done in a negative light. GOT IT. Fortunately, I am one who knows better. Too bad you don’t.
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 9:51 am
_________________________
It could be that. Or it could be the unspent rage of bitter and frustrated Hillary partisans who, even now, cannot resist recalling the primary fights. We’ve already had the Reagan comment and the Donna Brazile exhumed. The countdown to a Rev. Wright mention begins…..NOW.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/courage
My definition is 100% accurate.
No, ogenec, that is apparently the way you choose to see it. Just read your posts and you’ll see how you go off the rails at the least comment that could be viewed critically of Obama.
As I said, your definition of courage fit GWB to a T. How’s that working for you?
Are you suggesting that one should not view the actions of those in power like Brazille after the fact. It’s not like we’re reaching back to 1992 or 1993. But an opinion based on actions in 2006 you call an “exhumation.” You need to read your own stuff to see who’s off the trolley car.
ogenec says:
02 June 2009 at 9:51 am
I’m comparing the actions of the two latest Democratic presidents. You can’t escape who they are and what they did, or in the case of Obama, is not doing.
I guess I should ask if you were involved in the political fights of the 1990s while we’re at it. I was, so I know the courage WJC showed on DADT. In fact, he did exactly what you describe; pushing forward against best advice. He just lost the fight. That’s different from showing no courage.
The next Dem president, Obama, has an open field on DADT, plus a majority Dem Congress. Obama is ducking, showing no balls at all.
The Dem Party is not courageous. It has few progressive allies willing to help Obama move DOMA forward. The fact that Obama believes DOMA is correct gives them cover. It’s the way it is.
Cue George Bernard Shaw for us all:
You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, “Why not?”
As for the Reagan protectionism endured all these years:
George Santayana: “Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Taylor
And hear those words as spoken by Robert F Kennedy and by Teddy at his brother’s funeral:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiCLi9ddqlM
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/Day+of+Affirmation+Address+News+Release.htm
This is from a person of courage and a heart and mind for equality:
….. the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills – against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. Yet many of the world’s greatest movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant Reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.
snip
Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.
snip
Day of Affirmation Address (as delivered)
Robert F. Kennedy
University of Capetown
Capetown, South Africa
June 6, 1966
(As delivered)
audio Listen to this speech
43 years ago – when it was hard.
TM — I don’t begrudge you wanting to compare Obama and Clinton. By all means, have at it. I only said I was not the one doing the comparing. We can, I hope, agree on that point.
Second, in the 1990s, I was not in the political trenches. I was at Georgetown University, getting a joint degree in law and a master’s in business administration. I dare say my days then were at least as productively spent as yours were. However, I did join the political fray last year, to great success
So far, i’m batting a thousand.
I suspect Obama loves your George Bernard Shaw quote. After all, it’s of a piece with the “audacity of hope.” So I commend you for posting it.
This, too, is courage:
“Amid the tragedy of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, April 4, 1968, an extraordinary moment in U.S. political history occurred as Robert F. Kennedy, younger brother of slain President John F. Kennedy, broke the news of King’s death to a large gathering of African Americans in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The gathering was actually a planned campaign rally for Robert Kennedy in his bid to get the 1968 Democratic nomination for President. Just after he arrived by plane at Indianapolis, Kennedy was told of King’s death. He was advised by police against making the campaign stop which was in a part of the city considered to be a dangerous ghetto. But Kennedy insisted on going.
He arrived to find the people in an upbeat mood, anticipating the excitement of a Kennedy appearance. He climbed onto the platform, and realizing they did not know, broke the news.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gigsZH5HlJA
She remembers it from a truly spectacularly brave politician.
All good was not born with the arrival of Barack Obama.
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 10:05 am
No, ogenec, that is apparently the way you choose to see it. Just read your posts and you’ll see how you go off the rails at the least comment that could be viewed critically of Obama.
______________________________
Actually, djjl, it is not the way I see it. I just gave you a taste of your own medicine. You lot just love to ascribe motives to people. I find it reprehensible. But since you cannot overcome the complusion, I will return fire with fire.
If you make a reasoned argument, I will respond in kind. If you attack, I will attack back. My point is, leave the “love affair” and other comments out of it. They have no place here. Neither do comments that revisit the primaries.
I have a self-imposed ban on revisiting the primaries. I still want to abide by that decision, in the interest of comity. But if you all will not extend the same courtesy to me, then I will retaliate. In spades.
I didn’t ascribe any motives. But you are up their with the Gingrich list of words – like reprehensible.
What make you the arbiter of w is to be discussed here. You have admitted a very short foray into politics and have given yourself a batting average of 1000%. Wow, you have self imposed ban on re-visiting the primaries – then don’t talk about them. The rest of us can discuss anything Taylor March deems acceptable for her site.
Read your own posts, ogenec.
ogenec says:
02 June 2009 at 9:54 am
My point had nothing to do with “moral equivalency”, but instead to throw the language of the proclamation into a different light and frame of reference.
_______________________
Same difference. In other words, if you swap LGBT for AA, the injustice is made manifest. No?
*************
Actually, my point was HOW CONDESCENDING AND PATRONIZING TO THE LGBT COMMUNITY the language Barack Obama chose to use was.
******************
In an effort to be very clear, I offer the following example for thought – substituting BLACK for LGBT – My point being, would we think this is a great affirmative way to talk about BLACK people – Like, hey they can actually do important jobs, wow, they can serve in my administration with distinction!!
“BLACK Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected BLACK leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. BLACK Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.
Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the BLACK rights movement, more BLACK Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly BLACK candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly BLACK employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.
**************
IMO, BO’S proclamation language contains some inherent and apparently unconscious acceptance of homophobia which is shown by the apologetic and patronizing language.
IN THIS WAY IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HILLARY CLINTON “GETS IT” AND BO DOES NOT.
Still waiting for that FIERCE ADVOCACY to show up.
djjl, read yours. Are you kidding me? This thread began with a salute to Hillary for doing the right thing when “others” would not. GeoT called it out as the veiled Obama dig everyone knows it was, and then we were off to the races.
I didn’t comment at that point. I commented only when you said the proclamation was no big deal. I happen to agree with you, but I wondered if it would also have been no big deal if he hadn’t issued the proclamation. AliceP gave a substantive response. You, on the other hand, immediately accused me of a “love affair” with Obama. And you preceded that with yet another reference to Obama being willing to do whatever it took to win. Like Hillary wasn’t?!?!?!?
I then asked you to stop imputing motives to me. You ignored my request, reiterated the “love affair” comment, accused me of hating the Clintons, and for good measure, suggested that my refusal to equate gay rights issues with African-American civil rights had something in common with “Donna Brazile’s feeling that elevating gay rights to such a level is an insult to black civil rights.” Never mind that I have never said or intimated such a thing.
There may be people on this thread who can accuse me of over-zealousness. You are not one of them.
Wow, you have self imposed ban on re-visiting the primaries – then don’t talk about them. The rest of us can discuss anything Taylor March deems acceptable for her site.
_______________________
Another straw man. I’ve said, stop imputing motives to me. If you don’t, I will be forced to act accordingly, and the primaries will come up in that context. I couldn’t care less if you discussed the primaries — just keep my name out of your mouth. It’s a simple request, really.
AliceP says:
02 June 2009 at 10:50 am
__________________
I’m still not sure I understand the distinction you are making. But I’m trying to. In my view, the reason your analogy does not quite work is that the focus of Obama’s comments was not the “gayness” of LGBTs; it was the fact that they could serve openly, without fear of discrimination for their sexual preferences. African-Americans never had the option of hiding or being open (save for the small percentage who could “pass”). One cannot hide the color of one’s skin.
Having said that, I believe that sexuality, like color, is an immutable characteristic. As such, it should be a fundamental right for LGBTs to serve in the military and to marry those of their choosing. That is where the popular will is headed, and I think it is more legitimate in the final analysis that it come that way, rather than being imposed by presidential or judicial fiat. That’s just my view.
It seems to me that Taylor set this thread situation up so that a poster could choose a topic and illuminate it from their perspective and allow other posters to participate sharing their views – not necessarily agreeing with the original commenter.
I’ve reread this entire thread three times now and cannot get where ogenec feels that this was a tribute to Hillary. What I can get from this thread is that it was not a tribute to Obama’s actions in a certain area of the political spectrum.
Perhaps it is not an area of equal import to all participants, but that surely doesn’t mean that one or two people who don’t like the opinions of others has the prerogative to set the terms of what can and cannot be discussed. It would seem to me that is Taylor’s purview.
I mentioned no name and this is the post I referenced.
#
I have a self-imposed ban on revisiting the primaries. I still want to abide by that decision, in the interest of comity. But if you all will not extend the same courtesy to me, then I will retaliate. In spades.
#
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 10:36 am
Wow, you have self imposed ban on re-visiting the primaries – then don’t talk about them. The rest of us can discuss anything Taylor March deems acceptable for her site.
Wow lots of activity since I posted this yesterday.
You’re welcome Taylor for the post.
The last few times I have posted I receive from some ascribed motive of reliving the primaries, not liking Obama, and then GeoT’s lovely ENOUGH yesterday.
I am tired of not being able to be the least bit critical of Obama without someone going off about it. The President is in my view not progressive on social issues. Others in his Admin appear to be and deserve kudos for the courage to speak out. The point of my thread was with the witch hunts in the Mid East for gays, their harrassment and outright murder has been reported on extensively by some in the media. I abhorred the silence of the President. I truly believe he should speak to all issues, be it the abuse, rape and murder of women and children in the Sudan, the murder of an abortion doctor here in the states, whatever, and he does not do it with any authority.
If Hillary can announce same sex partner benefits, etc in the State Dept. why not do it in every department? Why not set an example of fairness for all to follow. If other Dept. heads had announced the same before Hillary I would have put up the same post giving them kudos.
So to some here, get over it please.
There seems to be only 2 posts that I can find on this thread that use the word “hate” or “hating” one is in a posting by GeoT – not his words but in a quote he posted referencing hate crimes and in only by one who’s name will not be mentioned by me at request.
kris
“why not do it in every department?”
For all the reasons mentioned above.
On Inauguration Day 2001, millions of Americans thought they were batting 1000.
Sometimes it takes a bit of perspective and a bit of heeding Robert J Samuelson’s recent advice to the media – get over the Obama infatuation.
Seriously, this is really childish. I never said the thread was a “tribute” to Hillary. I said it was a “salute.” Kris said this: Thank you SOS Clinton for the courage to speak to this issue when others around you won’t.
That’s not a salute? That’s not a veiled dig at Obama? Again, I couldn’t care less about that. I do believe Obama has been unnecessarily tepid in his public support of LGBT issues. You’ll get no fight from me on that point.
The problem started with the “love affair” comment. I don’t suggest that Kris or anyone else here filters their views or comments throgh a distorting Hillary lens. That’s an unfair charge. But some of you seem quite happy to make that charge against me, notwithstanding that I have criticized Obama where I think he has fallen short. Indeed, Kris herself and I were simpatico on some of these issues.
I would suggest that it chills debate to accuse people of having an agenda. Please, let it stop. I should hardly have to say it, but that does not mean that I am trying to dictate what issues can and can’t be discussed here. I am entitled to the common courtesy of not having my motives called into question every time I comment.
“I am entitled to the common courtesy of not having my motives called into question every time I comment.”
Funny – that’s exactly how I feel.
kris says:
02 June 2009 at 11:28 am
“I am entitled to the common courtesy of not having my motives called into question every time I comment.”
Funny – that’s exactly how I feel.
________________
And I would agree with that. I have NEVER accused you, or anyone else here, of the charge that it is your affection for Hillary (or, conversely, distaste for Obama) that drives any criticism of Obama. Not once.
kris
How dare you make a comment that might in anyway indicate any criticism of President Obama.
Here’s my remark – note not directed specifically to he whose name I may not speak at request:
“Some of you are a little to thin skinned when you perceive any criticism of Obama. That is not in our best interest. Get over the love affair.”
Seems that someone decided they were included in the “some of you.”
kris says:
02 June 2009 at 11:11 am
and then GeoT’s lovely ENOUGH yesterday.
I am tired of not being able to be the least bit critical of Obama without someone going off about it
____
Kris: I don’t mind criticism of Obama, at all. Just that it be based on fact, which this thread was not.
you said “Thank you SOS Clinton for the courage to speak to this issue” ….. “the silence of the Obama Administration was overwhelming”
IMO that is just not true and that’s what I was trying to point out.
I wish I would have chosen option B. Which was to do an Edith Bunker.
kris,
I would have thought it far more enlightening to have listened to Robert Kennedy’s speech in South Africa in 1966, or to his announcement in Indiana of Martin Luther King’s assasination, or to Teddy Kennedy’s eulogy for his brother, if one were truly interested in the politics, policy, a civilian struggles for civil rights.
Reposted for anyone interested.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/RFK/Day+of+Affirmation+Address+News+Release.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiCLi9ddqlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gigsZH5HlJA
GeoT
Are you saying the entire thread was not based on FACT or are you saying the initial comment introducing the thread purports a view with which you do not agree?
The gay community’s unhappiness with the Prez is undeniable.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/29/politics/main5049944.shtml?tag=topStories;secondStory
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 11:47 am
GeoT
Are you saying the entire thread was not based on FACT or are you saying the initial comment introducing the thread purports a view with which you do not agree?
____
The PREMISE for the thread, the initial couching of that “the silence of the Obama Administration was overwhelming.
And as an aside that somehow I “bristle” at criticism of Obama. (Taylor said the same thing about me on another thread)I honestly believe I do not. But I do speak up. There is a category of people that support the President but aren’t blind to his faults. I’m one of those.
Exactly the reason Clinton is carrying the water. This is likely a good political decision that gives Obama some cover (that everyone likely thinks needed based on what happened when President Clinton intended to do the right thing) with his base and allow Hillary to take some heat at a lower level that would be coming from Republicans and the far right fringe.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH YOUR POSITIVE AGENDA AND CHOOSING TO SPEND AS LITTLE POLITICAL CAPITAL AS POSSIBLE.
Note this is the same thing said yesterday early in the thread that some chose to morph into some sort of apologia.
Here’s my remark – note not directed specifically to he whose name I may not speak at request:
____________________
I’ve said my piece on this. But just so you know, “keep my name out your mouth” was not meant literally. It’s an expression that means, stop saying bad things about me. So you can refer to me by name. I just prefer — again — if you would not ascribe motives to me. I assumed you were referencing me, as your “love affair” comment was written in response to my post. If it was not, I apologize, and we could have ended this a long time ago. Many salient points here have gotten obscured in this debate. Which is yet another reason not to engage in name-calling.
I agree you are not, GeoT. But, it isn’t as if kris was the owner of this site and then his “couching” might be of import. He isn’t. Taylor has simply provided a forum for those of us who would like can post our thoughts and leave it open for all to discuss.
You didn’t agree with kris’s comment and neither did I. But I got what kris meant and had no problem participating in the discussion.
ogenec,
Agreed.
I’d really like you to listen/read those 3 links above. I think you will be glad you did.
“But I got what kris meant and had no problem participating in the discussion.”
Thanks for that djjl. I comment and post when I can and if disagreement with others here was a reason for me to not participate I would never comment on anything
As Taylor has said, this isn’t an echo chamber. There are times when it has been and I can’t stand that.
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 12:07 pm
But I got what kris meant and had no problem participating in the discussion.
____
well I feel I’m about one comment (by me) away from being called that old stand-by “Obamambot” and those are days, I was hoping, were history.
Is it possible that some of the criticism of the President deserves push back? Of course it does.
Does he desreve crisitism? of course.
Both are true. It’s not one or the other. IMO
__
have a great day.
Where were the comments made not factually true as opposed to being open to interpretation. It seemed to me this thread was driven by persons who cannot tolerate any perceived/actual critism of the President.
djjl -
You are right about that and threads tend to be driven by the persons you referenced every time something critical of Obama is said. There are some here who have blinders on.
Important to note that it was President Bill Clinton who first proclaimed June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.” back in the 1990s. Of course, Bush did not follow suit.
Still waiting for President Obama to show some courage on the Gays in the Military issue as he promised during the primary.
Some are new to political awareness and it’s hard to convince them every good/and or courageous step did not begin in 2006……..
and a “vote” that was not made.
Let’s take a peek at DOMA supposedly foisted upon us by WJC:
Let’s see authored by Republican Bob Barr and passed by the courageous members of Congress:
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Let’s see if we can do the math – can you say veto proof. Or is it just that Clinton should have spent more political capital on a fight that was clear could not be won?
Colin Powell crafted the policy.
I’m a little disappointed. I take a short break — to take the newbie summer associates to lunch — and come back to find more of the same. I thought we had squashed the beef.
How is GeoT’s comment at 12:20 so exceptional? It perfectly expresses how I feel. This is a blog. You post your thoughts, and others respond. With high-fives. Or raspberries. That’s the way it should work, and none of the debate, however vigorous it may get, is out of bounds.
But what IS out of bounds is the name-calling. Saying someone is infatuated with Obama is just a step short of calling them an Obamabot. You might as well go the full monty.
Well let’s all agree on one thing – gay and lesbian Americans will be considerably better off with President Obama then we would have been with President John McCain.
Where is the name calling and the Obamabot inference? I must have overlooked it.
FYI
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty plans to announce today that he has decided not to seek a third term, a move that may clear the way for a 2012 presidential run.
c chicago says:
02 June 2009 at 2:04 pm
Well let’s all agree on one thing – gay and lesbian Americans will be considerably better off with President Obama then we would have been with President John McCain.
There certainly hasn’t been a post here that I would read as disagreeing with that.
I don’t recall seeing the term Obamabot here in quite some time. I too missed the name calling. I will have to review I guess.
Quoting a Washington Post opinion writer is not name calling:
http://tinyurl.com/nl5gjo
The Obama Infatuation
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, June 1, 2009
“The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time.
snip
The infatuation matters because Obama’s ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health-care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That’s well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.
snip
The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.
kris
I’ve read this thread over 3 times now – it must be in the eye of the beholder.
It appears that one may be held responsible by quoting an opinion writer who some believes might be getting close to saying the “O” word. I don’t recall seeing that here in a long time either unitl mentioned by GeoT and oegenec.
Where is the name calling and the Obamabot inference? I must have overlooked it.
_________________
Neither GeoT nor I said anyone had been called an Obamabot. What he is saying — and what I heartily agree with — is that saying that someone has a reflexive reaction any time Obama is criticized is the next worst thing. We should be able to push back on positions with which we don’t agree without having our motives called into question. Period. That’s such an uncontroversial statement. I’m surprised I’ve had to repeat it this many times.
You aren’t pushing back on facts is the problem. You are the one who revisited introduced emotion as opposed to facts:
“Or it could be the unspent rage of bitter and frustrated Hillary partisans who, even now, cannot resist recalling the primary fights. We’ve already had the Reagan comment and the Donna Brazile exhumed. The countdown to a Rev. Wright mention begins…..NOW.”
Are you denying you have a reflexive reaction to defend any statement you perceive to be critical of Obama.
Try this reaction from you on a comment I made to Taylor:
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 9:51 am
Taylor,
Well you know what will drive the posting on a thread….a bit of anything that might in anyway be construed as a criticism of Obama. Some must not have thought others have been engaged in political discussion more than the last 2 years.
ogenec says:
02 June 2009 at 9:58 am
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 9:51 am
_________________________
It could be that. Or it could be the unspent rage of bitter and frustrated Hillary partisans who, even now, cannot resist recalling the primary fights. We’ve already had the Reagan comment and the Donna Brazile exhumed. The countdown to a Rev. Wright mention begins…..NOW.
Here is the irony. Robert J. Samuelson is mad at Obama’s policies. That’s his real beef. The media infatuation is just a stalking horse. But who among you is upset that Obama is trying to expand health care, control energy, or overhaul immigration? I bet none of you.
The other irony is that I’ve been among the most vocal on what I consider a misallocation of economic resources by Obama. So to see you all cotton onto a critique from Obama’s right is downright hysterical.
Your notion of exhuming Brazile indicates that you don’t see any reason to consider historical perspective. Fine. that for you. You are the only person posting anything about Rev W. ….and you did it as a taunt.
Politics is not for the thin skinned or those who can’t tolerate a difference of opinion that just might be a reflection of a difference of condition or circumstance.
Yeah, you wouldn’t think it would be such a difficult position to “get.”
I’m outta here – so enjoy.
So now who is reading minds and to quote one familiar here: “Let’s stop imputing motives and have a discussion. It’s in our “best interest” to act like grown-ups. Check the lurid accusations already.”
Lurid = bitter, etc
Djjl, you know better. I was returning fire with fire. You accused me of overreacting to perceived criticism of Obama. I turned the argument back on you. And I later made clear that I don’t believe the charge. In fact, that I think such charges are odious and beneath all of us. How many times did I make that point? And why do you insist on quoting me out of context?
Hey, it’s cool with me. Keep this up if you want. I promise, I will not let it lie. I do not like having motives imputed to me by people I’ve never met, and I never back down from scurrilous charges. The posts will keep coming as long as the claim is maintained.
Well, why don’t you just indicate the FACTS that you have a problem with. Just like Taylor and I both pointed out that you were FACTUALLY inaccurate in saying WJC bequeathed DOMA & DODT.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
You don’t push back on positions – you push back on opinions.
djjl:
when you say:
“Some of you are a little to thin skinned when you perceive any criticism of Obama. That is not in our best interest. Get over the love affair.”
that’s sounds dismissive… and a tad rude. You don’t really know me…. this is a blog. If you are curious about me, you can ask me directly.
You do realize you seem to react in the same way when it concerns the Clinton’’s right? You SEEM to get defensive when they are criticized.
GeoT you obviously decided to incloude yourself in “some of you” – your choice.
I didn’t say a thing about you GeoT. I don’t think I’ve ever hesitated to ask you something directly.
And, no I do not react the same way when it involves either Clinton. It just so happens that I’ve long been in a position to know what is clearly NOT ACCURATE in many areas as regards the Clintons.
How about just using facts when making accusations.
I didn’t discover politics in the last couple of years. My degrees are in political science. My interest has long been in politics – since a preteen. I worked as campaign volunteer long before I could vote – as I am proud to say both my daughters did.
I’ve never seen political figures as some rock stars – they are meaningful so long as the policies they pursue are meaningful to my political moral philosophy and ethics. While I remember little of him, Robert F Kennedy is the politician that I hold as an exemplary person in pursuit of political righteousness.
Lurid = bitter, etc.
_______________
In what world does lurid = bitter? I meant it in the sense of “sensationalist” charges. Let’s see how my usage stacks up:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lurid
Well, lookee here. Second definition means “marked by sensationalism.” Exactly what the kid meant. But hey, I’ve never apologized for having a big vocabulary. I’m not about to start now.
GeoT – I always appreciate your posts and insights and agree with you way more often than not but I must comment on the “defensive when they (the Clintons) are critized” line.
Yes – damn right we are. And with good reason. All of us Clinton supporters had to sit back and watch in horror, outrage, disbelief and disgust as our fellow liberals and the mainstream media bashed and attacked Bill and Hillary Clinton so unfairly during the primaries. Made Ken Starr and the GOP look tame and fair by comparison.
Nobody has fought harder and endured more for the sake of the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton and to see them attacked so viciously and unfairly by fellow democrats is something I never intend on “getting over”.
I hope Barack Obama never has to endure the same treatment – he certainly has been well treated (understatement) by the media so far.
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 2:53 pm
It just so happens that I’ve long been in a position to know what is clearly NOT ACCURATE in many areas as regards the Clintons.
___
so I would guess you can imagine someone else feeling that same way about say, The President? and then expressing that opinion without be called “in love with” Obama or as I was accused of yesterday. “you can’t take Obama being criticized”
Maybe what i say isn’t worth the paper it’s written on but I have a right to my opinion and a right not to be impugned by someone else’s preconceptions of my motivations.
c chicago says:
02 June 2009 at 3:16 pm
GeoT – I always appreciate your posts and insights and agree with you way more often than not but I must comment on the “defensive when they (the Clintons) are critized” line.
____
read further, I was just trying to make the point that it might make it easier to understand an ardent Obama supporter coming to his defense. It has to do with dedication. I am not making any criticisms of Bill or Hillary.
You don’t push back on positions – you push back on opinions.
___________________
WTF does that mean? Positions espoused here are opinions. You said “Hillary is carrying the water.” That’s an opinion. You said: “Obama knew exactly what he was doing with the Donnie M gospel tour, he knows what he’s doing in this as well.” That’s an opinion. You referred to “President William Jefferson’s courageous footsteps” on LGBT issues. That’s an opinion.
As far as this debate is concerned, I’ve only pushed back on the last statement. I couldn’t care less who you think Hillary is carrying water for or your views on Donnie McClurkin. But I did take issue with the third, because in my opinion it is not supported by the facts. He did not show courage on DOMA or DADT. You believe differently, and I respect that you do. We’ll never convince each other of our position, so we have to agree to disagree. I can do so without imputing any questionable motives to you. I hope you can do likewise. That’s the point of the posts. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
In the end, however, it matters not.
GeoT says:
02 June 2009 at 3:17 pm
_______________________
Exactly right, GeoT. Well said.
ogenec
Don’t worry – your vocabulary causes me no concern at all.
I have long known what the word lurid meant. I just made my internet shorthand comments a little to opaque…..I meant you were using over the top phraseology. Never meant to infer they were synonyms – just words meant to label others.
so I would guess you can imagine someone else feeling that same way about say, The President? and then expressing that opinion without be called “in love with” Obama or as I was accused of yesterday. “you can’t take Obama being criticized”
Maybe what i say isn’t worth the paper it’s written on but I have a right to my opinion and a right not to be impugned by someone else’s preconceptions of my motivations.
GeoT
One more time – FACTS not opinions. Also, are you indicating I said “you can’t take Obama being criticized”. If so, I’d like the link to see it in context – I googled and didn’t find it.
I have no problem with someone expressing a different opinion – but the facts are the facts. Facts are not opinions.
I know the difference between facts, positions, and opinions.
I used the term Position – to mean a stance of the administration based on fact as put forward by the administration.
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 3:30 pm
_________________
Well that’s funny. You make an over-the-top charge. I call it “lurid,” meaning sensationalist. And you complain that MY phraseology is over the top.
Here’s an easy solution. Stop assigning motives to me when you don’t know me. Then there will be no need for me to use descriptors like “lurid.”
“Don’t start none, won’t be none.”
Read your own words.
You have spent little to no commentary doing anything other than upholding Obama no matter what and complaining that some may have “bitter” recollections of the primary season. Well, hell, just imagine any woman or Clinton supporter being dismayed by the process.
I mean , why even question stuff that was, you know , 2 years ago.
You have spent little to no commentary doing anything other than upholding Obama no matter what and complaining that some may have “bitter” recollections of the primary season.
__________________
Well, that settles it. You, ma’am, are a bald-faced liar. And that is not an opinion. That is a bloody fact.
I DID NOT ASSIGN ANY MOTIVES TO YOU. THAT HAS BECOME YOUR JOB APPARENTLY.
Amazing, you use the word lurid and I comment that your references to “bitter” laden with meaning in the context that you have long posted here……….I mention a valid criticism of Donna Brazile and you bemoan exhumation.
You’re damn straight I don’t agree with you. And, I damn sure will not back down from anyone who tries to make me knuckle under…..I don’t care how many degrees, what their terminal degree is, or from where, or what positions they hold.
Well, ogenec, I am not now nor have I ever been a bald faced liar.
Why don’t you just point out your productive commentary.
Lurkers and all, please take note of who is doing the name calling and using incendiary language.
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 3:35 pm
. Also, are you indicating I said “you can’t take Obama being criticized”.
____
No, it wasn’t you. But it’s not an isolated situation.
Facts versus opinion? I think Ogenic is right blogs are nothing but opinions…. some opinions can be backed up or bolstered by facts, some are just personal opinions based on anything from fantasy to bias to out and out fabrication….
I assume everything is opinion and then dig for the facts pro and con.
BTW: Nice moment just now with Nancy Reagan and President Obama at the White House, very touching… that’s my opinion
Yes, you are. You want proof? Here goes:
– Bitter comment. I never asserted it as true. I posed it as a rhetorical response to yours. At 10:05, you said perhaps I see it that way. At 10:31, I responded and said I didn’t. That I abhored any such charges. At 2:33, just to be clear, I repeated my point: I don’t believe the charge, I was just making a point. Yet you continue to make the charge. It is a lie.
– Donna Brazile. Apropos of the moral equivalency issue I raised, you said “[m]aybe it’s along the line of Donna Brazile’s feeling that elevating gay rights to such a level is an insult to black civil rights.” I responded that I had never said or intimated such a thing. You compared me to Donna Brazile. I did not raise the issue. I was not responding to your criticism of her; I was responding to your attempt to link me to her. So to say that I have a problem with your “valid criticism” of her is another lie.
What do you call it when China buys Hummer?
Chummer?
I am sorry I ever put up this thread.
Lurkers can decloak and jump in for all I fucking care. They’ll get the same thing you’re getting. You impugned my motives. And you said I was “complaining that some may have “bitter” recollections of the primary season.” Both things are untrue. And since you continue to make the charge when I have gone to great lengths to prove otherwise, the conclusion is inescapable. You are a liar.
Not me Kris — I’m so glad you put it up..
kris says:
02 June 2009 at 4:03 pm
I am sorry I ever put up this thread.
____
ahhh, you love to stir the pot admit it
at least up ’till now you and I have always managed to shake hands when the dust settles… I hope that’s the case today.
I have to admit GeoT that I do like putting threads up that will cause discussion. It’s just that this one has turned a little ugly.
You never have seen me calling a poster a liar.
No I haven’t djjl. No I haven’t.
Oh, now you take offense to name-calling, huh? It’s a tad bit late for that. You want to rebut anything I wrote at 4:01, have at it. Otherwise, own up to your falsehoods. And just so we’re clear, I give a good goddamn what anyone else here thinks. This thread is full of posts from me pleading for a more civil approach. My entreaties fell on deaf ears. So, this is how I’m rolling right now.
Liar.
Facts versus opinion? I think Ogenic is right blogs are nothing but opinions…. some opinions can be backed up or bolstered by facts, some are just personal opinions based on anything from fantasy to bias to out and out fabrication….
I assume everything is opinion and then dig for the facts pro and con.
BTW: Nice moment just now with Nancy Reagan and President Obama at the White House, very touching… that’s my opinion
GeoT
Blogs are not places where FACTS should be disdained. Facts are what they are. Obama is POTUS – it’s a fact not an opinion.
Michelle Obama and Nancy Reagan provides a wonderful and decent tableau. Michelle Obama is doing a GREAT job. As I’ve said MANY times before – her is husband is doing a great job too – almost as good as she is. His is a bit harder however.
ogenec
I should not have taken the time to respond to your posts as I have the last 24 hours. Now, I’m out of time for you today – at least until I have completed my other responsibilities. I have copied and pasted your 4:01 pm post to wordpad and will take up a response to you at my convenience.
BTW
I haven’t called you any names have I?
I was against him wading into to DADT back in the 1990s, because the powers weren’t ready. I was proved correct, as it emboldened the right, which was already hunting him.
——-
It was Sam Nunn and the democrats who gave us DADT.
No, djjl, you haven’t called me any names. You’ve only said the following:
– I have a “love affair” with Obama;
– I reject the supposed symmetry between gay rights and African-American civil rights because, like Brazile, I believe that “elevating gay rights to such a level is an insult to black civil rights”;
Not to talk of your interspersed comments about “some” being new to “political awareness,” etc etc.
I suppose I should take these comments above as compliments, not insults. Heaven forfend you might have intended them as anything but. Yes, it’s all in my mind.
I extended my hand in friendship several times over the past 24 hours. That we are at this pass is your fault, not mine. And I will escalate this for as long as your lies go unretracted. That’s a promise.
Wow – from differences of opinion to name calling and now blaming and threats.
Taylor, this thread needs a “time out” (perhaps a permanent one) so everyone can take a few deep breaths and get off their “high horse”.
AliceP -
That’s why I said I am sorry I put this thread up.
I, for one, am done.
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 6:25 pm
I, for one, am done.
___________________
Good. Then so am I.
please, all , understand that I’ m done spendi g my time in any wasteful manner. It is not that I have bowed to the primacy of anyone’s position, opinion, or set of “facts.”
AliceP says:
02 June 2009 at 5:42 pm
You all are grown ups, and kris should not feel it was wrong to put this up, and not feel it’s about stirring any post. The feelings for Clinton are real and whatever has gone on is real. It’s part of what lies beneath. People had the choice to walk away and didn’t. It’s up to you all to quit or not.
I’m not walking away Taylor. I’m just through with an exchange that I feel goes nowhere.
I see no pronbem at all with kris’s thread. I particularly appreciated AliceP and LakeLady. The later entrance of JimK pointing out who was really running point – in the Democratic Party- (actually one of my old favorites) -Sam Nunn, was spot on.
I didn’t think you were, djjl, so I hope you didn’t think that was what I said. Anyone can choose to stop responding when they want.
By the way, ogenec, the one post that got moderated was one of yours, because you threw the f-bomb. Just so you know why.
I just don’t think anyone, including kris, should shirk from posting on anything Clinton, which is what will happen if people think it’s too hot a topic, which it should not be. Or that mixing it up when you think Clinton gets something right, or that Obama is being targeted unfairly (which is rare), is wrong either way.
It’s always good when someone like AliceP, LakeLady and JimK chimes in. I wish more people would, but that’s not something I can control.
PS-Beware of touting Sam Nunn.
kris knows that when I said she “loves stirring the pot” I was ribbing her in a good natured way.
I for one respect Kris, djll, AliceP, c chicago, Velvet, Lake Lady… most everyone here, including ogenic.
The fact that we disagree and can still remain “friends” is a testament to our efforts to respect each other. We seem to almost always work things out amongst ourselves.
By the way, ogenec, the one post that got moderated was one of yours, because you threw the f-bomb. Just so you know why.
__________________________
I understand and I have no problem with that. Apologies for the profanity. Hopefully the storm has passed. But I will not sit on my hands while people compare me to GWB, contend that I see gay rights as an insult to black civil rights, accuse me of an infatuation with Obama, and level sundry other insults.
Anyone who contends that I started this has a big ol’ blind spot. I begged — literally said “Please, let’s stop this” — to no avail. I’m a chill guy, but not THAT chill. At some point, I had to fight fire with fire.
And henceforth, that’s the way it will be. If you take my comments at face value, and reject or accept them as you please, we will get along just fine. If you impugn my motives, I will come back at you. Hard.
Hey, no biggie about the f-bomb. It just is an immediate catch before anyone moderating the site at the time even sees it. That’s because of the unknowns that like to target this site on occasion.
Everyone is capable of making an argument around here and backing it up. It should be noted that everyone also has the right to deduce from comments, whether yours or someone else, ogenec, what they believe they’re hearing through your words. Come back as you like, but that “hard” comeback may still fall on deaf ears. Others make their own judgment, so calmly making your case is usually best, either that or realizing that you can’t dissuade everyone from believing what they will. Sometimes “hard” push back accomplishes the opposite of what you desire. Just a thought.
Taylor Marsh says:
03 June 2009 at 8:45 am
____________________
Jeez, you’re too full of common sense this morning.
Yes, you are right. I don’t even mind the Obama adulation charge. What really got my goat was the Donna Brazile comparison. I have never said or done anything to warrant the charge that I see gay rights as an insult to black civil rights. That’s basically calling me a bigot.
I maintain that ascribing motives is a dangerous thing. You will not see it in my comments. And since I don’t react well to it, I would like to ask that folks be a little more circumspect about it.
In any event, my negative energy is spent for, like, the next seven years. I shall heed the immortal words of Q-Tip from A Tribe Called Quest: “So raise up squire/Adjust your attire/We have no time to wallow in the mire….”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0SfEIj8nk
Taylor, This is what I wrote in response to ogenec’s post. From my perpsective it could be believed that Ogenec was intimating that those whose posts he disagreed with were not sane. There is a “maybe” and no accusation….no name calling.
Ogenec could have said – I absolutely do not agree with Donna Brazile on this issue. I also do not believe he was compared to GWB – I simply pointed out ogenec’s definition on courage “That’s not what takes courage, as I understand the term. Courage is doing the right thing in the face of withering opposition. ”
I said GWB fit his example of courage – “You might want to think about your small definition of courage – it’s a perfect fit for George W Bush.”
ogenec says:
02 June 2009 at 8:24 am
I’d like to return to the only sane postings on this thread. AliceP, I disagree with the moral equivalency argument of gay rights = African-American civil rights, for reasons previously articulated. No need to rehash them here.
That said, your post at 11:09 was very illuminating. I would have considered it a point of pride (no pun intended) that LGBT people can be more open than has previously been the case. But I think that you have the better view: that the timidity of half-measures is itself a pernicious kind of discrimination. It’s kinda like saying, look at the nice water fountains we built for African-Americans.
Thanks for posting your thoughts. It gave me something to chew on, as intelligent commentary is wont to do.
#
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 9:08 am
I don’t think I’ve seen you make a real “moral equivalency” argument about gay rights. I’ve seen you make a legalistic/historical (amendments to the constitution, etc).
Why don’t you just do a notepad to cut and paste your moral equivalency article when it seems some of us have missed it. Maybe it’s along the line of Donna Brazile’s feeling that elevating gay rights to such a level is an insult to black civil rights.
Kind of along the lines of some people’s rights are more important than other people’s.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/13/201990/-Donna-Brazile-marginalizing-Gays-at-the-DNC
OK you two (djjl & ogenec), Take a deep breath and give each other a terrorist fist bump. Even family has to scrap it out from time to time, it’s just human nature.
**Just some loose change from your friendly neighborhood lurker.
Side Note: IMO, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton make an outstanding team. I was skeptical at first, but as time passes…it seems they have a symbiotic relationship. Good Cop & Bad Cop — Velvet Hammer & Steel Magnolia. However you may see it, I think this is working out better than many of us imagined.
#
It could be that. Or it could be the unspent rage of bitter and frustrated Hillary partisans who, even now, cannot resist recalling the primary fights. We’ve already had the Reagan comment and the Donna Brazile exhumed. The countdown to a Rev. Wright mention begins…..NOW.
#
ogenec says:
02 June 2009 at 10:01 am
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/courage
My definition is 100% accurate.
#
djjl says:
02 June 2009 at 10:05 am
No, ogenec, that is apparently the way you choose to see it. Just read your posts and you’ll see how you go off the rails at the least comment that could be viewed critically of Obama.
As I said, your definition of courage fit GWB to a T. How’s that working for you?
Are you suggesting that one should not view the actions of those in power like Brazille after the fact. It’s not like we’re reaching back to 1992 or 1993. But an opinion based on actions in 2006 you call an “exhumation.” You need to read your own stuff to see who’s off the trolley car.
Sandmann
I’ll be gone most of the day – so no problem. I don’t call names and I am very careful in what I say. I can’t help it is someone (to paraphrase StephBoston) has critical reading problems.
Sometimes, I use a little too much “shorthand” but I am careful to not attack others. I don’t appreciate being called a liar of any kind. I am not a liar.
Gone for the day.
Heya Sandman. I remember back when I said that HRC at State was perfection, when I said that it was on its way. You cannot believe the hate mail I received.
In fact, Sandman, to this day I still receive it. I’m considered a “traitor” (though some who email me spell it “trader” heh-heh) for even backing HRC at State. The denial these people have because *they* were the ones who were so wrong about the Obama – Clinton partnership is deep, as is their furor for anyone who was right (which would be me).
Time to either start a new thread or move on, folks.
Per my post at 9:07 this morning, I said I was done. I am done. As proof, I even blessed you with the soulful sounds of A Tribe Called Quest
I will have no further comment on this matter. Let’s move on.
ogenec says:
03 June 2009 at 9:39 am
“Per my post at 9:07 this morning, I said I was done. I am done. As proof, I even blessed you with the soulful sounds of A Tribe Called Quest I will have no further comment on this matter. Let’s move on”.
**I was just listening to Q-Tip’s latest CD “The Renaissance”
One of the best CD’s I’ve bought in along time**
_______________________________________
Taylor Marsh says:
03 June 2009 at 9:33 am
“I’m considered a “traitor” (though some who email me spell it “trader” heh-heh) for even backing HRC at State”.
**trader lol, that gave me a chuckle**
**I was just listening to Q-Tip’s latest CD “The Renaissance”
One of the best CD’s I’ve bought in along time**
___________________________________
Sandmann, big ups. That is a wonderful CD, and it’s great to have Q-Tip back. If you don’t already have them, I would suggest checking out A Tribe Called Quest’s CDs. The first three in particular: People’s Instinctive Travels, The Low-End Theory, and Midnight Marauders. My friends and I debate all the time about which of the last two is their best.