« A legal headache for PlanetOut | Main | Too much Billary = Obamomentum »
January 26, 2008
African Americans speak in South Carolina; now it's the gays' turn on Mega Tuesday
Posted by: Kevin
It seems the Clintons would not allow an election season pass without a whole lot of smear tactics in South Carolina. Why leave it to the Republicans, who left behind a pile of sleaze in the 2000 GOP primary? So, the Clintons decided to win at all costs.
In response, the voters of South Carolina hit back hard and said, "no." There was an African-American-led tidal wave against the Clintons' underhanded and desperate tactics.
It isn't just that Hillary herself accused Barack Obama of "representing" a slumlord (which it was later revealed she and her husband cozied up to for a photo back in their good old days) during the televised debate. It isn't just that Bill Clinton himself ran around the state, drawing on all his fake indignation and mind-game talents, saying contradictory things just about every 10 minutes and then blasting the media for daring to capture it all accurately. In for a penny, in for a pound. They went for broke, even as the whole thing was clearly slipping away from them.
Word then came this afternoon, reported first by Political Radar, that the Clinton campaign launched robocalls across the state attacking John Edwards:
"Hello, This is the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.
Before you vote on Saturday, you should know that John Edwards voted for permanent trade relations with China. That’s right, John Edwards voted for the bill that cost thousands of jobs. Like the ones in the textile mills he talks about so much down here.
"You should also know that John Edwards made nearly a half a million dollars working for a Wall Street investment fund. A fund that’s been profiting on foreclosing on the homes of families; including 100 homes right here in South Carolina. That’s according to The State newspaper.
"Here in South Carolina, Edwards says he’s one of us, but up on Wall Street he was just another one of them.
"Can you trust John Edwards? This call is paid for by the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign."
Yes, from the same woman who sat on the board of Wal-Mart, and was a corporate lawyer herself who didn't exactly run around defending nuns and orphans at the Rose Law Firm, a Little Rock perch broiled by scandals involving its Clinton-attached attorneys. And let's not forget Bill Clinton was a staunch defender of free trade agreements with China, as well as NAFTA.
And what's more, this is from the same political couple that, after signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, ran radio ads in western states bragging about their opposition to gay marriage, even though that election was clearly in the bag. They haven't changed one iota, and they won't change.
In 2000, the Human Rights Campaign made a moral choice in the Democratic primaries. They leaped into the primary campaign and endorsed Al Gore, the establishment candidate, in order to help short-circuit Bill Bradley's challenge, even though Bradley was better on gay issues for longer than Gore was and his campaign was running out of steam. They played their card, and it said a lot about what they valued most. This year, HRC is so diminished in its standing and credibility (no hate crimes law, no ENDA, after a year of Democratic control of Congress), and has picked losers in the presidential sweepstakes since the DOMA-bragging Clintons left power. So they are standing on the sidelines, waiting to be told who they must support.
Mega Tuesday is nearly upon us. There will never be another moment in this entire election campaign where gay voters can be more influential on the outcome. So what will you decide? What statement will you make? Time is short. Just don't kid yourself that this moment doesn't mean much. It means everything - whether the gay community will have a real chance for progress in the next four years, or be consumed whole by a political machine that puts itself above all else, including our lives.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e55009b2dc8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference African Americans speak in South Carolina; now it's the gays' turn on Mega Tuesday:
Comments
-
i thought this was a serious blog...
After reading this last post I guess not.As John Lewis said to Obama ..."don't forget those who brought you over the bridge"... This smacks of johnny-come- lately arrogance and historical amnesia. I have been around...I am 53 years old and have fought more fights for gay rights than hopefully you will never have to. Stop being unfair and truly,if you must, Obama's message of unity...your post strikes me as jeujune and er... well, hypocrital. Keep the faith and stop the bashing.
-
I left out a word... after truly....embrace.
ate logo
-
"this is from the same political couple that, after signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996"
WOW, ladies and gentleman, Chris Crain has just revealed a fact that no one else on the planet was aware of: federal laws do not become laws UNTIL THE FIRST LADY SIGNS THEM, too! THANK YOU, CHRIS!
I read that your candidate, Reverend, er Sen. Obama said in his victory speech,
"I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina.” That’s kinda fair given that he only appeared by video at the Obama-McLurkin “God delivered me from homosexuality” revival where 99% of the attendees were black.
It’s sort of ironic actually. To the “Willie Horton Factor,” historians can now add the “Donnie McClurkin Factor.” I hope the Senator has ordered an appropriate thank you gift. Maybe an invitation to sing at his inaugural.
And many are still wet this morning from what else Obama said in that victory speech, yet again, bringing us together:
"The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.”
I’m sure he just forgot to add, “and it is not about straight versus gay.” After all, he’s the candidate who tells people “what they need to hear—not what they want to hear.”
-
Ktov:
I don’t understand the point you’re making, except that you don’t like the substance this post. Why? Johnny-come-lately arrogance? Jejune?
Nope, I think Kevin hit the nail on the head. The point here is that the Clintons have not been running a clean or fair campaign. And now they have both been solidly rebuked for it.
You seem to suggest that we should not criticize the Clintons, regardless of what they do. Rather, we should just stand by, let the Clintons engage in their chicanery, and then rally around the Democratic Party winner, whoever it is. I say, “No flippin’ way.” I will hold each and every Democrat accountable for campaign subterfuge when I see it. There are far too many people who are just partisan cheerleaders—they support their team, no matter what. This is not OK. Kevin, a Republican, had the clarity of vision to call out the GOP on its sleaze in the 2000 campaign. As a Democrat, I intend to do the same when I see sleaze in my party. And I agree that the Clintons have not run a respectable campaign.
When it comes time for the general election, will I vote for the Democratic candidate? Yes. Yes, because I generally believe in the Democratic vision for this country. Yes, because I think a Democrat will be better for gay rights. The difference is that I will excited and hopeful and optimistic if I fill in a bubble next to the name “Barack Obama.” It will be a vote "for" Obama. I will be far, FAR less enthusiastic about filling in a bubble next to the name “Hillary Clinton,” as that will only be a vote against he Republican nominee.
-
To All:
I could have sworn this was a guest post by Kevin Ivers, but it looks like I goofed. I apologize for the error.
To Michael Bedwell:
Your screeching and caterwauling above isn't useful or insightful.
First, you are nit-picking irrelevant points when the sense of what Chris was saying is perfectly clear (e.g. how the first lady must sign federal legislation). I think we all know what he meant.
Second, references to "Reverand" Obama are just plain dopey. I guess that’s what you say when you can't articulate a particular issue, question, or concern.
And third, I don't think anyone has suggested that Barack Obama has a spotless gay rights record. I too was disappointed when he failed to mention "gay" people in his South Carolina victory speech. However I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has a history of triangulating on issues. I do not believe she is as principled as Mr. Obama. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe not.
-
It was a post by me, SS and MB. Something very screwy going on with the byline...
-
Obama won in South Carolina because all of the blacks voted for him. It had nothing to do with Clinton stepping up the heat in the last few weeks. Blacks are going to vote for a black person no matter what. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell should let any thinking person know that the Clintons are bad news for gays. Barack Obama won't answer any direct questions including why he voted "present" over 400 times. Obama and Clinton are both bad news.
-
Ted Kennedy endorsement - finally someone throws a high inside pitch on Hillary.
Ted Kennedy may be 100% liberal but he takes American politics and the presidency very seriously. He does not endorse for political gain, but for love of country.Will someone please tell John Edwards he's picking up pennies in front of a steam roller.
-
What's good for the Triangulating Goose is good for the GOP Shill Gander. If Kevin can endlessly pillory Hillary for misstatements, intentional and not, then it's entirely fair to call him on trying to reinforce the idea [marbled with sexism, by the way] that Bill & Hill are political Siamese twins.
For those who haven't listened to Obama's SC victory speech, it is noticeable not just that not a single word about gays was heard in that long oration but that ignored us while giving shout outs to roughly TWENTY-ONE other subgroups in his "most diverse coaliton":
The young—by rough count, three times
The wealthy—twice
The poor
Blacks—multiple times
Whites—multiple times
Latinos—at least four times
Native Americans
Asians
Women [actually just as “Gender” but you take what you can get I guess]
Black children
White children
Independents
Crossover Republican voters—three times
Different religions—twice
Teachers
Maytag workers
Wal-Mart workers
Mothers of several kinds
The old and seniors
Patriots
Both veterans and active duty soldiers.While the candidate who claims, along with Kevin and Chris, that he "always talks about gay rights wherever he goes," who's running campaign commercials bragging about telling people what they need to hear not what they want to hear apparently thought the "good people of South Carolina" didn’t need to hear about LGBT Americans, even those who voted for him Saturday. Even after everyone who wouldn't like hearing about "the gays" had already voted. Could it be that he was worried about the Gay-word being picked up in nationally broadcast soundbites?
Or is South Carolina the Iran of America where there are no gays. And there are apparently none in Iowa or Nevada either, states he also mentioned in reference to "diverse" suporters.
Apparently across the state and nation that Obama talks about seeing so vividly and wisely he sees no LGBT blacks, whites, latinos, Asians, veterans, soldiers, mothers, teachers, workers, senior, rich, poor, or of any religion or creed. He talked about what he believes this country can be which is, among other things, apparently LGBTless.
Months before Obama staffers started falsely accusing the Clintons of playing the race card, black lesbian minister Irene Monroe accused Obama of just that and of throwing gays under the McClurkin campaign bus for the 50% of Dem voters in SC who are black. Gotta hand it to him—it worked. Of course, no one could expect him to thank us for being the Willie Horton of 2008.
And did anyone else notice all the countless, bright red signs waving behind him last night that read:
“STAND for change”? I suppose it's only a coincidence that they echo the title of McClurkin’s greatest gospel hit, “Stand."
Yep, the new "Big O" is certainly the man of change; who's going to sweep away all of those old tactics of pitting one group against another. Not just Cheney's distant cousin, he's Bush sunnyside up: a "Compassionate Liberal."
Finally, I think it is fair to refer to Sen. Obama as Rev. Obama because I can't remember the last leading Presidential candidate who wrote or spoke as much about religion as he has/does. [NB: adjective "leading" eliminates Pat Robertson]. Is he running for Prez or Pope? He has already unilaterally surrendered ownership of the term "marriage" to religion when it is the "civil" term we have fought for. Virtually all of his mentions of gays in his speeches [when he actually does] refer not to calling upon his nongay listeners to allow us our civil rights [as hypnotized gays "hear" him say], but entreat them only to, as Samuel Johnson would say, "pay us with feeling."
"Embrace our gay brothers and sisters" is his latest altar call. How long before his revivals will throb with thousands singing "Kumbaya" and Oprah's servants will be moving through the crowd carrying sticky silver trays of Smores?
-
WOW, ladies and gentleman, Chris Crain has just revealed a fact that no one else on the planet was aware of: federal laws do not become laws UNTIL THE FIRST LADY SIGNS THEM, too! THANK YOU, CHRIS!
Well, Mike, apparently her much vaunted 'experience' -- thirty five years of it, last I heard -- mostly consists of osmotic absorption, so perhaps it was a forgivable error.
Obama won in South Carolina because all of the blacks voted for him.
Dennis, how is the remedial maths working out for you? You'd think a twenty eight point stomping would be unspinnable, but we're getting the 'Jesse Jackson' line thrown out with gay abandon. Why not blame Edwards for stealing all those white votes that should have gone to Hills?
-
By the way, Michael, could you make up your mind :-
Last week, Obama was a 'smile-fucker' whose speech at Ebeneezer Baptist was transparent - and vacuously insincere, pandering.
Now, he's not 'smile-fucking' the 'mos enough.
Jesus, bitch, I've been shoe-shopping with drag queens who were more decisive.
-
Kevin: Sorry for the byline problem. I'll try to sort it out.
Michael: I realize you're passionate in support of Hillary, but can we lower the venom a notch? I know it's very Obama of me to ask...
Ironically you come off very Log Cabin in your attack on Obama for not mentioning gays in his South Carolina speech. First off, no one ever claimed Obama "always" mentions gays, though I agree that the speech was a missed opportunity. Still, how often does Hillary do the same -- especially when like at Ebeneezer the audience is by no means entirely receptive? Log Cabin folks (no offense, Kev) tend to do likewise, picking the specks out of the eyes of Democrats when their own party is sporting logs for glasses. Feel free to do the former, but to be fair let's hear the latter.
Dennis, you're math is indeed off citing the black vote as the only reason Obama won South Carolina. He also won the majority of whites under 30 and among whites overall finished with 25%, competitive with Edwards (40%) and Clinton (35%). "But for" the black vote, Obama would not have won South Carolina but the same would be said of female votes for Clinton and white male votes for Edwards. Obama also won in nearly-all-white Iowa and finished a very close second in lily white New Hampshire. He carried rural Nevada as well, taking more delegates in the caucuses there.
-
OK byline problem sorted. Gimme a shout if you see it happen again!
Identity Pluralism, Pt. 2 from The Bilerico Project on Jan 28, 2008 3:16:45 PM
When I started writing this series, I knew that some time would pass between posts and thatgiven the nature of the blogospherewhat I'm writing about here might not be news anymore and that people would have moved on. Especially after the ... [Read More]