• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « GNW 5: Trouble under the golden arches | Main | Dumbing down politics by sound-bytes »

    April 13, 2008

    Hillary's 'bitter' faux pas

    Posted by: Andoni

    Barack Obama has gotten a lot of heat for telling a San Francisco audience that when he was in Pennsylvania’s small towns he encountered voters who were bitter. He attributed that to their repeated disappointments from politicians and the government making promises but never following through.

    Sensing a gaffe, Hillary Clinton jumped, accusing Obama of elitism and saying he was belittling and out of touch with the working class. Clinton was playing the same old game of politics that she and Bill perfected.

    As someone from Pennsylvania, I would argue that Clinton’s move was a big faux pas. What she has shown is that she is the one who is out of touch with these people, not Obama. Should she lose Pennsylvania, we will look back upon her move as the turning point for this happening.

    I am from Western Pennsylvania, returning home several times a year, so I know this area well. It is impossible for someone to visit the small towns in Pennsylvania, such as Altoona, Johnstown, Greensburg, and Beaver Falls, and not detect bitterness, anger and disappointment. If you miss these things, you are either deaf and blind --- or simply not listening to the people.

    What’s surprising is that Hillary Clinton is supposed to be the candidate of these blue collar workers, the ones who have seen their jobs and health insurance disappear. If she has been through these small towns and all she sees are strong, hardworking people with a rosy outlook, she isn't attuned to what they are saying.

    How can someone who claims to be for these people visit with them and talk with them and not pick up on their anger, bitterness, and hurt. I think Pennsylvanians will soon wake up to the fact that she hasn’t been listening to them, and when they do that they are going to conclude that she really isn’t fighting for them and that she is phony.

    Obama's response  to her “out of touch” criticism is remarkably good. Score another round for the “new politics” of honest discussion as opposed to the old attack politics of triangulation and obfuscation.

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e551e2e36d8834

    Comments

    1. Andoni on Apr 13, 2008 6:41:31 PM:

      When I first wrote this yesterday, "bitter" was the word the Clinton campaign was focusing on most. Today they have moved on to "clinging" to religion and guns. I think Obama got the better of round one because as I said there are plenty of angry, livid, bitter people in these small towns and Obama heard their voices. In the second full day of Clinton hitting hard on this, clinging to guns and religion is having more traction and was a poor choice of words for Obama. He will probably have to visit some small towns in PA and explain what he meant. I believe his clinging statement had some some truth to it, but politically it was not wise to say.

      The lesson here is that even in closed meetings you are always on stage and a tape or video of your words can surface at anytime.

    1. BB on Apr 13, 2008 8:08:23 PM:

      I live in Washington Crossing, PA. I HOPE you are right about HIllary making a mistake attacking Obama on his "bitter" comment. Chills ran up my spine with her vicious "gotcha" attitude. I know she looks so stupid, but do others? PANDERING PANDERING PANDERING. I made my decision that I will NOT vote if she is the nominee. If I do vote, it will be for McCain, who I disdain. BUT my hate of Hillary is so intense, and grows with each passing day. I truly DETEST her, more than I even detest Bush. She is such a LYING, scummy, phony. I HOPE she will lose people because of her sudden, over night, gun support. In Bosnia, she made herself up to be G.I. Jane. She got caught in that lie, so now she is Annie Oakley.

      There are LOTS of Democrats in PA, who want stricter gun control, particularly in cities like Philadelphia, where murder rates keep going up up up. I sure hope they get fed up with her latest stunt. She is now running as a REPUBLICAN.

      I wrote Obama that Hillary is proving his point, and I hope someone in his campaign gets my e-mail to him. He said these people who feel so angry and bitter feel that way because they feel so overlooked, ignored and abandoned by our Government. Hillary is overlooking them and ignoring them by not acknowledging they even exist. I am ANGRY and BITTER. But, according to Hillary, there are NO people in PA who are angry and bitter about Government. I don't exist to her. Then WHY is Bush's approval rating so low (upper 20s) and WHY do polls show that over 80% of Americans feel we are going in the wrong direction? Is that HAPPINESS and CONTENTMENT talking? I think not. Hillary thinks so. UGH!!!!!! I hate, hate, HATE her.

    1. Andoni on Apr 13, 2008 8:40:35 PM:

      Andrew Sullivan just put up a YouTube link to Obama on the Charly Rose Show where he pretty much makes the same point about guns and religion with respect to these in small towns who down and out workers. He does it much better here in 2004 because he takes longer time to explain what he means. In San Francisco it was part of a Q & A and he rushed through the same concept. If this is what Obama thought in 2004, I'm sure it is also what he thinks in 2008, only in the the rushed setting of a Q & A at a fundraiser, it came out poorly. Here's his similar statement/osbervation on guns and religion in 2004 - you judge:
      http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/obama-on-the-cu.html

    1. Tim on Apr 14, 2008 9:45:37 AM:

      I think that they both made a mistake, but having lived in western PA for 7 horrid years I believe Andoni is right though Obama made a mistake to draw attention to it. Hillary made the mistake of over pandering, and McCain is the only one that can remind them all that as a republican they have nothing to fear from him.
      Honestly the place is full of bitter men and women but it is the failed politics of the past, not the absence that made them that way. They still cling to union lies, and the belief that they were abandoned instead of the truth that they were used for their union dues, and that their own attitudes to their employers and the shifting global markets drove their industries oversees.

    1. Brian Miller on Apr 14, 2008 11:22:57 AM:

      I live in Pennsylvania and grew up here, and I can assure you that the vast majority of Pennsylvanians were irritated and disgusted by Obama's contempt for our state and its people. While those who don't like Pennsylvania (describing it as "horrible" on this blog, for instance) might feel justified in painting our state as a hellhole of fundamentalism and anti-immigrant sentiment, those of us who are proud to be from our state recognize its heritage as a microcosm of America -- diverse, tolerant, scenic, and full of opportunity.

      The bitterness here is not from the people of our commonwealth, but from the Obama partisans who just cannot understand why those of us who haven't hopped aboard the Obama BS Express are refusing to do so. The fact is that many Pennsylvanians are quite familiar with pretty-boy snake oil salesmen coming in to their lives and telling them that he can fix all their problems, if they just elect him. Pennsylvania has seen many Barack Obamas in the past, and so we're rightly skeptical.

      When you consider Obama's thin resume and complete lack of any meaningful achievements, his arrogance towards the people of Pennsylvania -- urban, rural, suburban, rich, working class, poor -- is even less justified.

    1. Stephen Clark on Apr 14, 2008 1:25:19 PM:

      Call me partisan, but it seems to me that Hillary comes out of this more damaged than Obama. Her sudden transformation into a gun-toting Bible-thumping hunter just looks ridiculous. It reinforces the belief that she is desperate and will literally say or do anything in her futile obsession to win.

    1. Brian Miller on Apr 14, 2008 4:04:29 PM:

      Her sudden transformation into a gun-toting Bible-thumping hunter just looks ridiculous.

      That turn of phrase, and the assertion that she's "suddenly transformed," strikes me as more Obama campaign bullshit than reality.

      While I am not a supporter of hers, I can tell you that her message defending the state was well-received by many swing voters here. Obama's statement effectively argues that Pennsylvanians are bitter, angry, racist, religious gun-nut losers who need to turn over control of our lives to enlightened liberals like Obama, who will solve our problems for us.

      I think the undercurrent driving Obama's little angry elitist outburst is his rage at not being able to bamboozle and hoodwink Pennsylvania voters with his campaign okie-dokes. Pennsylvanians have long experience with coiffed, holier-than-thou Ivy League snobs who look down their fabulously moisturized noses at us and attempt to bullshit us with their pedigrees. Obama simply isn't used to campaigning in a state that is used to his schtick, and has seen it a dozen times before, so he's convinced we're rejecting his hot-air candidacy out of racism and bitterness, rather than Pennsylvanians' preferences for candidates who are thoughtful and have real experience.

    1. BB on Apr 15, 2008 9:06:35 AM:

      Brian, I wish you would actually LISTEN to or READ what someone says, before you respond to what it is that you WANT them to have said, to serve your agenda. First off, Obama did not paint ALL people in PA as angry and bitter. Those who are doing well are not angry and bitter, unless they are liberals, and are angry and bitter that we have had Bush as our President for 2 terms. But, financially, they are not angry and bitter. Obama was talking about SOME people, in small towns, where they have seen their factories leave and other businesses leave, and they have lost their pensions and have had to take jobs that pay less, if they can find one. AND, they don't have the money to send their children to college, and they may have lost their health insurance, or can't afford health insurance, ETC. Those people. THOSE people. Get it? How elitist of you to not know they exist. Marie Antoinette didn’t know either. But, they exist. They exist. If you have a cushy job, and a cushy health plan, and a cushy life, then he is NOT talking about you. GOODNESS, you are dense.
      And he said those people with financial hardships tend to not vote for their financial concerns. A Republican comes to town and lies and makes them afraid the Democrats are going to take their hunting rifles away, and they vote for guns not their financial concerns. The Republicans are for lining the pockets of the already wealthy, and big business. The oil companies. The pharmaceutical companies, ETC. OR, a Republican comes to town, and says there will be gay marriage if they don't stop it, and America will go to hell in a hand basket ‘cause, didn't you know that 9/11 was God's anger at America because of 'dem dere gays, cause God hates dem dere gays. Be afraid of dem dere gays. ETC. And they vote religion instead of their financial concerns, and we end up with a BUSH. So, their financial concerns go ignored by Govt., and it worsens.

      How dare Obama state the obvious and state what is true. He should PANDER like all the rest. How dare he give people something to think about. Doesn’t he know public ignorance is the best friend to a politician? They are then more easily manipulated and lied to. What is Obama’s sin? Trying to RAISE the intelligence level among the voters, instead of dumbing down. That really bugs you, don’t it?

    1. Brian Miller on Apr 15, 2008 1:28:04 PM:

      BB's post does a better job of underscoring the dismissive arrogance of Obama's statement (and the position of him and his supporters) better than anything else I can write or point to.

      Once again, some people who live out of state, who have never had a working-class job, who joke about the areas they claim to be talking about as "flyover country," are now going to lecture those of us who live and work here on "how things are."

      You should really listen to yourselves sometime. I live in a diverse, working class section of Pennsylvania with lots of blue-collar workers and immigrants. If there was "bitterness," I'd see it.

      There isn't, and because I don't see the trends that your revisionist rhetoric about my state insists are there, I must have a "cushy job."

      Yet Obama, who never once campaigned in a working class Philadelphia neighborhood (and limited all of his campaigning in southeast PA to wealthy Philly suburbs) goes to the massive San Francisco mansion of an oil billionaire to rip on our state and he's "telling the truth."

      Seems to me that the cushiness is all Obama's to own, not those of residents of Pennsylvania who don't see the phantom ills he preaches about.

      Seriously, you're going to talk about an "agenda" when this is your campaign?

      For real?

      Dividing up our state into groups of people, who are either "cushy" or "bitter" based on whatever's politically convenient for discussion at the Democratic Party chardonnay brunch, isn't going to win you Pennsylvania -- and it certainly won't win you the election. Rather than "prescribe solutions" for problems that don't exist, perhaps you should encourage Obama to spend some actual time in the working class neighborhoods he so decries.

      As the local media has noted, Obama has spent virtually no time in any of them -- restricting his campaigning mostly to rich white suburbs of Philadelphia.

    1. BB on Apr 15, 2008 3:08:34 PM:

      Brian, once again you CLIMB ONTO YOUR SOAP BOX, and pontificate without reading or listening. I live in PA. Washington Crossing, PA. Obama got into a bus and drove all over PA. LIES LIES LIES. Shame on you. You see it and hear it based on how you WANT it to be, rather than how it is.

      Hillary and McCain will NEVER be in the mansion of a billionaire, will they not? OH NO, not they. What the F&@k was that comment even about? Hillary and McCain will be campaigning, on the streets, in rags, holding a cup? Just like Bush?

      Obama was commenting on what he saw and experienced, as he traveled about PA. The Allentown News Paper, on of the PA cities he was referring to, just ENDORSED him for his TRUTHFUL recognition of their economic plight. You know Allentown, one of the RICH (LOL) PA cities Obama only visited.

      You want to believe that he said something offensive, and so shall you believe that. Don't let truth get in your way. Truth has always had a liberal bias. If the truth is offensive, what can one do? LIE, to make it pretty?

      Instead of voting for the person or Party interested in Health Care reform, for example, many who desperately need health insurance will be voting for McCain, because they fear their hunting rifle will be taken from them, by the Democrats, and they believe religion is under attack, and the hypocritical, but oh so self-righteous Republican Party will save them from that. And that is as it is. SO MANY voted for Bush because they wanted the marriage amendment, to keep marriage sacred for people like Larry Craig, and Vitter. LOL AND, look what people got with their vote. Mr. 28% Approval Rating Bush.

      People, like you, are trying to make this into something gigantic, like the crazies did after the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed Bush was from Texas. NOW 72% of the County are not so proud that he is from America. An EXTREMIST, and a REACTIONIST Are what you are. You speak as if you would like to LYNCH Obama. Is that what you want? Lynch the uppity nigger?

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Apr 15, 2008 6:51:45 PM:

      Typical Obama supporter; anyone who disagrees with Obama or criticizes him in any way is a "racist" who wants to "lynch the uppity nigger".

    1. BB on Apr 16, 2008 10:12:41 AM:

      North Dallas, it is not interesting to you that Brian would be upset that Obama was in the mansion of a billionaire, when there is not anyone who is or has ever run for President who has not been in the mansion of a billionaire, or two, or three, or four, for whatever reasons. McCain, through his wife, is VERY wealthy and has 8 or 10 homes. I bet some of them are mansions, or mansion-like. If McCain had said that he has encountered people in sections of PA, who are angry and bitter about their financial situation, Cable Stations, and Brian, would have said, "there goes that Straight Talking McCain again, telling the truth, bless his heart". BUT, a black man saying that, about some White People, well, just who does he think he is? He's an elitist. What they are really saying is, he is an uppity black man, looking down on the Whites. In truth, he is not. He is just correctly assessing the situation. BUT I know that the reaction would have been so different if a WHITE REPUBLICAN candidate had said those things. NO DOUBT IN MY MIND.

      By the way, how are you coming along comprehending the body count thing. Your brain must be hurting trying to understand that. In order for the Democrats to take control of Congress, they needed the body count, so even candidates like Harold Ford were important, for the body count. Keep trying, you may get it, in time. But rest, and take it slow. Wouldn't want you to blow any brain circuits.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Apr 16, 2008 12:52:43 PM:

      A bit of emphasis will make the problem with your argument quite clear, BB.

      If McCain had said that he has encountered people in sections of PA, who are angry and bitter about their financial situation, Cable Stations, and Brian, would have said, "there goes that Straight Talking McCain again, telling the truth, bless his heart".

      Those are hypotheticals.

      So, in essence, you are using hypotheticals about what you claim Brian and McCain "would have" done as an excuse for what Obama actually did.

      Meanwhile, you clearly said that people who criticize Obama must want to "lynch the uppity nigger". It is quite telling that you and your fellow Obama supporters claim that anyone who criticizes Obama in any way is a racist who wants to lynch him.

      By the way, how are you coming along comprehending the body count thing.

      Oh, that's easy.

      You're simply making it obvious that "homophobic" and "antigay" are synonymous with "not Democrat" -- and that you will support, endorse, and give millions of dollars to the Democrat Party candidate regardless of their stance on gay issues.

      Which makes you a hypocrite. :)

    1. BB on Apr 16, 2008 5:31:09 PM:

      North Dallas, I feared you might blow a brain circuit, and your last post causes me to know you did. POOR THING. If voting for an antigay Democratic Senator or Representative, as opposed to voting for an antigay Republican Senator or Representative, gives the body count needed to put REID and PELOSI in charge, instead of Hastert and Frist, unless you are an IDIOT you give Reid and Pelosi the body count they need. Gays can sleep much better now, thank you. But that is just toooooo hard for you to grasp, isn't it. You must be straining you brain, like someone sitting on the toilet with constipation, trying to grasp this. OH NO, go easy now. Don't hurt yourself.

      Hypotheticals? Have you not seen the wonderful Daily Show summation of Fox Cable News, which allows anyone, but an IDIOT, to accurately GUESS at what their reaction will be, based on whether they are speaking about a Republican, or a Democrat. Here it is, for your viewing enjoyment. The real fun part begins about half way, with the Fox People being against something, if the person is a Democrat, but then for the same thing, if the person is a Republican. PRICELESS!

      http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/11/daily-show-the-rise-and-fall-of-fox-news/

      Going by the FACTS of this HYPOCRISY, shown in the above clip, one can hypotheticaLIZE about such things, quite accurately, thank you very much. NOW, knowing how much you HATE basing things on hypotheticals, I bet you are just going MAD with all the hypotheticaLIZING Bush and McCain are doing about Iraq. I bet someone has to keep you tied down to restrain you, because of all your anger about their hypotheticals. NOW NOW, clam down. BREATHE!

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Apr 16, 2008 6:56:26 PM:

      BB, until I found out that the Democrat Party and its gay activists actually tell people that there are concentration camps for gay people operating in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, I really didn't understand the mindset of people like yourself at all.

      But then I noticed that all of you who screamed the loudest about persecution and said you were going to leave the country if Bush was elected or re-elected have still stayed here, so what I've pretty much figured out is that all of your stories about how intolerable life is and how you can't sleep at night are nothing but propaganda.

      Furthermore, looking at Reid, just as an example, he is a practicing Mormon, believes in limiting abortion, voted FOR the Defense of Marriage Act and has stated clearly that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman -- which means he would qualify as a homophobic hatemonger and antigay bigot if you applied the same rules to him that you do to others.

      This sort of two-faced behavior is reflected in your claim that people who oppose or criticize Obama are racists who want to "lynch the uppity nigger" -- despite claims that Obama is against calling people racists.

    1. BB on Apr 16, 2008 10:29:02 PM:

      Goodness, you with the concentration camps again? NO ONE I KNOW is talking about concentration camps. You keep with the same ol' shit. It is NOT the buzz on the gay streets. ONLY on your street. Can you understand words, when I write them? Obviously not. ONE person, I guess, made this claim. ONLY from you, have I heard about this, and keep hearing about this, ad nauseam. You are fixated on this. Some gay person somewhere MIGHT be saying that gays are being put into space ships and shot out into outer space, secretly, and released into orbit, to die in space. And you would decide ALL gays believed that. You seem so STUCK with these few things. You CLING to them, as Barack would say. They are your REFUGE.

      Reid voted AGAINST the marriage amendment. He voted for NO discrimination in hiring based on sexual preference, and he voted to include gays in Hate Crimes legislation. BUT once again you think someone like him compares to someone like Lindsey Graham, and that is just not so. You are like a dog chasing his tail on these SAME things you just don't have the brain power to comprehend and move past. Like a cow chewing its cud.

      Reid became my HERO when he slyly kept the Senate in session during holidays, so Bush could not appoint any more of those HORRID people he loves to appoint, when Congress was in recess. Reid will NOT be putting forth a marriage amendment to be voted on. He might personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman BUT he has the intelligence to know that ALL do not share that belief, and times are changing, and in a short time MOST people will believe that marriage is between 2 PEOPLE who love one another, and who want to become FAMILY to one another. He voted for DOMA 12 YEARS ago, but would he now? I'm gonna tell you something that might surprise you. SOME people evolve. I've evolved in 12 years. YOU don't, and many in the Republican Party don't, but some people EVOLVE. They grow and they change. They learn. They realize. They move more towards their humanity, rather than further away.

      I truly fear your brain will have a complete melt down if you ponder upon the concept of evolving. That is SO not in your programming. DANGER DANGER.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Apr 17, 2008 12:15:23 AM:

      Goodness, you with the concentration camps again? NO ONE I KNOW is talking about concentration camps. You keep with the same ol' shit. It is NOT the buzz on the gay streets.

      Obviously it is, since it is being talked about at gay events with gay leaders sponsored and supported by gay Democrat clubs.

      Furthermore, I noticed that you never once stated whether or not it was true and whether or not you believed it. Why is that? Would you say that a person who stated such things was a fraud and a liar?

      Reid voted AGAINST the marriage amendment.

      Irrelevant, since you call pro-gay and gay-supportive people like Harold Ford who would vote for and support the FMA, and you call people like John McCain who voted against it antigay and homophobic.

      He voted for NO discrimination in hiring based on sexual preference, and he voted to include gays in Hate Crimes legislation.

      Correction. He voted for laws to give people preferential treatment based on their status as gay or lesbian in both hiring and in prosecution of crimes against them.

      I do not believe that I should be protected from firing or that crimes against me should be prosecuted more vigorously because I am gay when neither is given to straight people.

      Again, what this all boils down to is you giving a pass to a Democrat with views that you would call homophobic and antigay if they were a Republican. Sure, you can continue to come up with convoluted reasons as to why, but they really don't change the obvious.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Apr 17, 2008 1:57:14 AM:

      NDT-

      Why do you perpetuate these absurd canards?

      I do not believe that I should be protected from firing or that crimes against me should be prosecuted more vigorously because I am gay when neither is given to straight people.

      Employment protection is not a "special right" that only gay folks have; straight folks have it to. It is flatly illegal for any employer to fire an employee strictly because he or she is heterosexual. Thing is, THAT doesn't happen too often now does it. Unfortunately, the opposite is not true -- gay folks, DO get fired for being gay.

      What's next NDT? Do you think sexual harassment laws only protect women? Do you think race discrimination laws only protect minorities? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe these laws cover everyone, but that most unfair employment practices affect minorities? Think about that.

      I find it ironic that you disparage fair employment laws, but yet you live in the most nation's most gay-friendly city in the most gay-friendly state and benefit from those very same laws. I don't think the liberal gay Democrats are the hypocrites.

      Again, what this all boils down to is you giving a pass to a Democrat with views that you would call homophobic and antigay if they were a Republican.

      All of your arguments are totally fallacious and illogical. You make the same B.S. argument that unless a Democrat is jumping up and down with pom-poms cheering for gay rights all the time that somehow it's hypocritical for gay folks to support them. Not true. MOST Democrats (not all) are better on gay rights than MOST Republicans. Deal with it. And yes, I know the governor is progressive on gay issues, so you needn't remind me.

      Now I suppose I can look forward to your same tired reponse with the link to the John Kerry story. How boring and totally irrelevant.

    1. BB on Apr 17, 2008 10:11:31 AM:

      NDF, poor dear, I am telling you not one gay person is talking about concentration camps here in PA, at the bars, where I live, that I am aware of. It is not being written about in the Philadelphia Gay News. Not being talked about on GAYUSA, (a wonderful cable show out of NYC) or on IN THE LIFE. Not being written about on the several gay blogs that I check into daily. If you stopped gay people on the street and asked about the concentration camps, they would not know what you are talking about. No warning from the HRC. Nothing from the ACLU. Our vigilant gay activist Larry Kramer has issued no warnings. BUT you persist with it. And you seek to justify your BIZARRE persistence with it. So, someone talked about it at a gay event. It seemed to have died at that event, except for you. He threw out a ball, and no one caught it, and it dropped to the floor, and then you picked it up. My guess would be his fears are wrong. ONLY YOU carry on with it. When I hear about it on GAYUSA is when I will worry about it.

      And you still can't comprehend that the Republican Party depends on antigay folk to elect them. The religious crazies. They are the BASE of the Party. SO, whoever gets elected is beholding to the BASE of the Party. Gay people NEED Democrats in charge. And then we can go on better, from that point. We can progress better, from that point.

      Let's say you are REALLY horny, and are a size queen. You are so horny you have GOT to have it NOW. You are ITCHING and TWITCHING , BURNING and YEARNING for it. You are in a situation in which two guys are available to you, as quick booty calls. NEITHER are huge, like you like ‘em, but one is bigger than the other, and you just can’t go out prowling around for a big one. You have GOT to have it NOW. Who ya' gonna call? WELL, let’s just say the Democratic Party’s penis is bigger than the Republicans'. GET IT? GOSH your head must be made of cinder block. FRIST or REID are my choices. I'll take Reid any day. Would I like Feingold in charge. YES! Maybe someday he or someone like him will be. That's a goal. Until then, Frist or Reid? I choose Reid. And Hastert or Pelosi. WELL, Pelosi has a MIGHTY BIG one. SO, no contest.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Apr 17, 2008 1:05:22 PM:

      I find it ironic that you disparage fair employment laws, but yet you live in the most nation's most gay-friendly city in the most gay-friendly state and benefit from those very same laws.

      I lived and worked as an out gay man for over a decade in cities and states that had nothing of the sort until I moved to San Francisco, and never once had a problem.

      But, since moving to San Francisco, I have seen numerous examples of incompetent gay and lesbian people perpetuated in their positions simply because managers were terrified of discrimination lawsuits, as well as companies getting hit by lawsuits where unqualified candidates allege "discrimination".

      Here's a good example now.

      And of course, don't forget Bonnie Bleskachek.

      In contrast, when Boeing's chief executive was caught having an affair with a coworker who he did not directly supervise and which had no material effect on the company, he was summarily fired. He did not receive the protections that Bleskachek did, nor was he allowed to remain employed for fear that he could sue his way back into his job, as she did; he was fired.

      You make the same B.S. argument that unless a Democrat is jumping up and down with pom-poms cheering for gay rights all the time that somehow it's hypocritical for gay folks to support them.

      Why not? After all, that's the standard you demand of Republicans.


    1. BB on Apr 17, 2008 4:17:08 PM:

      NDF, you are an ANGRY and BITTER man, who hates your own people, if you are gay, and you show NO compassion or understanding towards them, or forgiveness. You look for the WORST examples of us, or what you consider the worst examples of us, and you say that is ALL of us, You hold the gay community to a different standard.

      The religious crazies vote Republican because they feel they will best get their antigay ways through them, and you do not fault them. But you fault us for voting Democratic. Are you writing the religious crazies and letting them know they will have BETTER luck with the Democratic Party, since that seems to be what you think. Why do the religious crazies not know what you seem to know? Why do THEY vote Republican instead? PLEASE tell us. YOU MAKE NO SENSE.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Apr 17, 2008 5:24:05 PM:

      NDF, you are an ANGRY and BITTER man, who hates your own people, if you are gay, and you show NO compassion or understanding towards them, or forgiveness.

      Do you know what Bleskachek blamed when she got called on the carpet for her behavior?

      "The only thing I can come up with is that this is a whole lot of homophobia and sexism.”


      And of course, in the example I cited, what did Jane Warner blame?

      Warner wrote in an e-mail to the B.A.R., "I don't want to play the gay card, but I think because I am a woman and open lesbian it has been easier for the [department] to bully me."

      She wrote in another e-mail that the beat owners who appointed Adams were "all men and all straight ... I think the Police Department owes me an explanation."

      I don't understand gay and lesbian people who openly sexually harass their coworkers, demand sex from them, retaliate against those who refuse, and then claim that investigating and punishing them is "homophobia and sexism".

      I don't understand gay and lesbian people who break rules, appoint unqualified people, and insist that any attempt to discipline or investigate them is the result of straight people being prejudiced.

      And I'm sure as hell not giving them compassion. They knew the rules, they broke them, and now they're trying to get out of them by screaming "discrimination".

      You call me "angry and bitter" and insist I "hate gay people" because I hold them to the same standards as I do straight people, instead of giving them special treatment because they're gay.

      But what else should we expect? You probably scream that anyone who fires a black person for bad performance just wants to "lynch the uppity nigger".

    1. BB on Apr 17, 2008 6:57:10 PM:

      You proved my point about you, with your article about Bleskacheck. You WANT to believe the accusations, and NOT believe her denials. She said she wanted her day in count to prove herself. BUT, you have already found her guilty. AND if she is guilty, so what? She represents ALL gays? Gay people are just that; PEOPLE. Some can be good, some wonderful, some not so good, and then there is Jeffrey Dahmer.

      You look for what might be gay crazies or gay bad apples, and you say, SEE what you ALL are like. Each of us who are gay must bear the burden of who might be the worst of us? You make NO sense. Your point gets LOST because of your absurd unfairnesses. Do you think that no gay person has ever been targeted or discriminated against, because they are gay?

      Trust me, your posts show me that you do NOT hold gay people to the same standards. You attack and condemn. And you comment on things you just don't get. I found it interesting that Brian, or you, if you are Brian, targeted Obama for being in a mansion of a billionaire. BUT McCain has been in mansions of billionaires, and owns 8 or 10 homes. Bush has been in such mansions. Cheney lives in a mansion, and has been in such mansions. ETC. What was offensive to Brian (YOU) about Obama being in said mansion? Why CONTEMPT for that? I ASKED if it is because a black man shouldn't be in such a home, but a white man (or woman) can. If that is not the reason, the reason was NEVER given. NEVER GIVEN. Why was this offensive? I'm waiting.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Apr 17, 2008 7:24:10 PM:

      You proved my point about you, with your article about Bleskacheck. You WANT to believe the accusations, and NOT believe her denials. She said she wanted her day in count to prove herself. BUT, you have already found her guilty.

      Next time, you may wish to read the links you are given prior to commenting.

      You have demonstrated that you will ignore facts, even when they are given to you, and stick with your prejudicial belief that gay and lesbian people never do anything wrong and are always falsely accused.

      Each of us who are gay must bear the burden of who might be the worst of us?

      When you support and defend their behavior, you bet.

      What was offensive to Brian (YOU) about Obama being in said mansion? Why CONTEMPT for that?

      Not being Mr. Miller, I can't comment on what his particular offense was.

      But given that Obama has screamed that rich white people cause all the problems in this country and bashed Clinton, McCain, etc. for going to the homes of such people, for him to go into one himself would seem rather contradictory.

      The problem is that, as you expect employers to ignore sexual harassment and retaliation by gay and lesbian employees because they're gay and lesbian, you expect others to ignore Obama's contradictions and behaviors because he's black.

    1. BB on Apr 18, 2008 12:21:28 AM:

      Show me where I supported and defended Bleskacheck, if she is guilty. I said, if she is guilty, so what? What does her alleged behavior have to do with me, or any other gay person. She is herself, and I am myself. AND, Bleskacheck is rather like your concentration camps. Stop gay people on the streets and ask what they think about Bleskacheck, and see the blank looks on their faces. If she is guilty of harassment, then she is guilty of harassment. MY GOSH, I just googled her and found this happened in 2006. This is 2008. Why are you obsessed with this? I read that she stepped down, chose not to fight the allegations, and went from a salary of 112,000 to 40,000, and can never have a position to supervise city employees, ever again. SO what do you want? I don't comprehend the significance of this. You need some new material. Your act is gettting stale.

      Obama has NEVER said rich white people cause all the problems in this country. BUT racists would like to think he has. And to say that would appeal to racists, who would hungrily eat that up. He talks against Corporate lobbyists, and the control that Big Business has over our Govt. He has criticized Hillary for taking money from such lobbyists. He and John Edwards had chosen not to do that. Supposedly, Hillary has taken more money from lobbyists than anyone, and she then owes them favors. Obama chose to take money only from private citizens. WELL, some private citizens are not rich, and some are.

      Obama was at the home of Gordon and Ann Getty. From what I can find, Gordon and Ann are philanthropists. He is a REPUBLICAN who has held fund raisers for Democrats as well, such as Pelosi. He has close ties with Gavin Newsom, and has supported him in many ways. He is a venture capitalists, NOT a lobbyist. They are patrons of the arts and sciences, and donate millions every year to opera companies and ballet companies, ETC. To me it is as harmless as Barbra Striesand having a fund raiser at her house, as she has done. Or Elton John raising over 2 million for Hillary, with a concert. So what? I can't find that Gordon and Ann are shady, corrupt people, but I BET you can. I bet they are the WORST people who ever lived. Right?

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad