If you have "no place to go," come here!

What Obama Really Meant

vastleft's picture

[Welcome, Sideshow readers, Taylor Marsh readers, and TalkLeft readers!]

America's fastest-growing quiz sensation is "What Obama Really Meant."

Here's how W.O.R.M. is played...

  • There are three teams — and a special player called "The Unifier"
  • The teams are the Progressives, the Obama Fan Base, and the Grand Old Party
  • The goal for the Progressives is "Progress," meaning that players who start the game with less money someday have a chance to have more
  • The goal for the Obama Fan Base is "Unity," meaning that the Progressives have to stop their partisan bickering with the Grand Old Party, and everyone gets ponies
  • The goal for the Grand Old Party is to take all of the money that other players started the game with. And everything they'll ever earn. And that their children will earn.
  • The goal for The Unifier is to be "Teh Awesome." And he is, he is!
  • In each round, The Unifier says something that's shockingly disempowering to the Progressives
  • A skilled Unifier knows to hide the shockingly disempowering moment in the middle of an otherwise perfectly accceptable, or even admirable speech
  • If a Progressive spots the shockingly disempowering comment — and dares to face the onslaught from the OFB — s/he presses the Challenge Buzzer and explains the problems with the statement
  • The OFB besieges the Progressives. Every verbal tool is allowable, except logic.
  • According to the mainstream media, the game always ends in defeat for the Progressives. The losers must wait four years or more for Progress, during which the GOP cackles maniacally.
  • As a consolation prize, The Uniter offers Progressives "hope," which is practically as good as Progress, isn't it?
  • At an undetermined date, the ponies arrive!

Here's an example of game play...

1. The Unifier kicks things off with a statement, such as:

Children are the future! Cotton candy is fun! Liberal heathens must stop hassling the GOP. Everyone's getting a pony!

2. The Progressives either concede the game immediately, or a team member presses the Challenge Buzzer and says something like:

"But the GOP and Religious Right are destroying our country!"

3. The Obama Fan Base encircles the Progressives and shouts rebuttals, such as:

  • He said "Children are the future!" Isn't that the greatest thing you ever heard?
  • When he said "liberal heathens," he meant, um, something really good. Definitely. And the way he said it was inspirational!
  • Why must you hate Obama!? Why do you love Hillary so much!? If Hillary is nominated, we won't vote, you Unity destroyer!
  • Don't you know that a black man can't be elected unless he throws progressives under the bus?
  • You dirty hippies had your turn, and you ruined everything. Now it's our turn, and God as my witness, the mellow will never be harshed again!
  • Ponies, dude. Ponies! Get with the program!
No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

Don't you want everybody to have a Pony?

Don't you understand that the only way to win as a progressive is to run from the right, and that after the election everything's going to be different, we promise?

What's wrong with you?

UPDATE Maybe number the points, instead of bulleting them, and then add internal links. Then, instead of spending tedious time answering the OFB, we can simply refer to the relevant move in this game.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

hypnot's picture
Submitted by hypnot on

So that's how the game is played!

Skipping along to the end: "At an undetermined date, the ponies arrive!"

Suppose I'm one of the folks whose vote, job, safety net, and rights were bargained away during the preceding turns. We're getting hungry and We're not feeling too well, but we're trying to stay calm and suppress our crankiness. We've still got hope.

When we finally do get that pony, what's the best recipe? We'll be ravenous, so we should plan ahead.

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

...Edwards would step to the mic and say something like this.

we need some truth, big paradigm-smashing truth, soon.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

God already told Obama to lead the Change Charge, like Moses stickin' it to the Egyptians. And you can't petition the Lord with prayer, y'know.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"Pony Food," "Soylent Rainbow," and "To Serve Ponies," since this is an animal-friendly blog. But we're also a house of foodies, so mmmmmm, ponies!!!

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I thought another valid move, in addition to "In each round, The Unifier says something that’s shockingly disempowering to the Progressives"

Is to make vague promises to forward a progressive cause or show up for a vote or "support" someone trying to do some real progressive work. Then the Unifier draws the chance card, which says, "called away to Oprah show". Or "do an interview on rightwing radio with mentions to St. Ronnie".

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i was just speaking with someone about the lack of wit in our discourse, thank you for restoring my faith, VL.

space's picture
Submitted by space on

The difference between Edwards' supporters and Obama's and Hillary's is that Edwards' supporters like him despine the boneheaded things he has said and done, but don't try to rationalize them.

Edwards' Iraq vote was boneheaded. I accept that he has learned a lot since then and would not make the same mistake again. But I don't pretend that it wasn't boneheaded.

Not to long ago, Edwards made some comment about having Republicans in his administration. Look, if you are going to reach out to voters across the aisle, do it by appealing to their values, not their party affiliation. Boneheaded.

But Hillary and Obama supporters contort themselves into knots rationalizing behavior or statements that, in many cases, would have them in apoplectic fits if made by Reid or even Pelosi.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

With Edwards it takes a lot of faith because there’s just no way to rationalize this.

Submitted by lambert on

VL, I read that last statement differently from you.

Space says:

But Hillary and Obama supporters contort themselves into knots rationalizing...

That doesn't sound like the Oborg to me, unlike Antiphone, who yet again wastes time and fails to engage by throwing a link out there without explaining why it's important. A theologian would call that cheap grace, I think.

Here's how I think about Edward's bio. "Boneheaded" is a little bit static for me.

MLK said: "The arc of history bends toward justice." As a consequence, that arc is going to do its bending in the trajectories of individual lives. (Where else?)

So, if I look at Edwards, I see a smart, talented guy who arrived in the Village and bought into a good deal of their crap. And over time--the arc--he has been divesting himself of Village crap. He gets the problem. And I know he cares about justice, because as a lawyer, that's what he achieved. (Cue right wing "trial lawyer" or even "tort reform" talking point from OFB.)

And when I look at Obama, I see a smart, talented guy who started out well with the community organizing stuff, and today is leveraging right wing talking points and sucking up to CBN and trying to win a nomination with a constant stream of Sister Souljah moments against progressives. I don't think that's boneheaded, but it does suggest a certain, shall I say, malleability about the direction he'd take the country.

So, which biography do I prefer? The one that starts out boneheaded and bends toward justice, or the one that starts out promising and bends toward the right when push comes to shove?

Simple, really.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

I was going to work this into my sig for awhile, but I'm not sure it's necessary any more. This is a distillation of material supplied over at Big Orange:

* OFB PROPHLACTIC Yes, I am paid by the Hillary campaign. Yes, I hope to get a job in Hillary's administration. Yes, I am a shill. Yes, I am a hack. Yes, I am a liar. Yes, I am a racist. Yes, I am a purist. Yes, I am a troll. Yes, I am ignorant. Yes, I hate Obama. Yes, I ignore all facts that don't square with my [lying|racist|purist|shilling|hackish|trollish] preconceptions of Obama. Yes, my reading comprehension is poor. Yes, I have a hidden agenda: I hope that the Democrats lose, and to that end I support [not Obama]. Yes, I could be older than you. Yes, I think all young people are stupid. Did I mention I'm a shill and a hack? Good. Anything else?

Just sayin.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

When push came to shove was when he was in the Senate and when he was running for VP and what he did went far beyond a Sister Souljah moment. But the point is relatively moot. To deny this past a certain point and to shelter in a dream of Edwards as a refuge from the impending choice is escapism. If Obama’s weak point is inexperience, Edwards has none to point to but that which he now disavows.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I misread the comment and have deleted mine.

Thx, Lb.

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

so what are you guys thinking about Feingold saying Edwards supporters have been "taken in"...?

as much as I've respected Feingold, this is a little troubling to me...

Submitted by lambert on

1. What Feingold's talking about it boneheaded Village crap that Edwards bought into when he was in the Senate.

2. Not sure what AC is talking about above in the VP race. Edwards was Kerry's subordinate, and last I checked, the flak Edward's caught was for keeping up Two America's longer than Kerry wanted it done. Also, Edwards wanted to fight after 2004, and Kerry caved.

None of the candidates are perfect and all of them have gotten things wrong. (Obama's making a huge mistake now by letting FISA go past when he could change the game totally in his favor by doing what is also the right thing, i.e. filibuster.) But to me, Edwards has been moving in the right direction long enough and consistently enough, and at enough personal cost, to make his trajectory convincing.

Ditto Obama, it's just that the arc is away from justice, not toward it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Edwards will (rightly so) fight when his election is stolen.

Clinton will probably say nothing as her people will be knee deep in the chicanery.

Obama will have a Kerry moment of Unity when his election irregularities give him butt hurt. He too will slink off in the middle of the night like Kerry.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That's a great budding meme.

That's exactly what we're seeing in Edwards -- he's moving toward the light AND heat of the progressive sunshine, while Obama is telling us to go crawl back into the stinkin' hole the GOP and MSM have made up for us.

Obama starts from this vibe of sunny optimism, but he tells the good guys they're no better than the bad, and the bad guys that the coast is clear.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Get over yourselves. Obama is progressive. If you looked past the surface for a moment and looked at his record to see the kinds of things he's committed to, you might figure that out. You sound like a bunch of self-indulgent university students who talk a lot about how the world needs to change but don't have the courage to step out to change it. Good luck.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

What exactly is Obama committed to? He was a neighborhood organizer for roughly five minutes before running for Congress. He was in the state legislature for roughly five minutes before running for the Senate. He was in the Senate for roughly five minutes before running for President.

Obama is committed to Obama. Get the stardust out of your eyes and wake up. This guy is every bit as phony as Mitt Romney.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Thank you for commenting, Joseph. Your comment is important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again. --CorrenteBot

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

Has he ever used that word referring to himself?

I'm just wondering. I would think it would freak out the Republicans he's reaching out to, but maybe he has.

Can any OFB trolls find a quote for us hat0rz?

And I mean an actual quote with a link to the source, not the OFB's W.O.R.M. interpretation. That would be much more persuasive.


Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Edwards is progressive?! You mean the guy who's platform is the opposite of his voting record? The guy who voted for the China free trade agreement? The guy who voted for the war? Then changed his mind when the war didn't work out so well? The guy who creates the mythical monster of "the evil corporation' to win your votes the same way Bush and Cheney created "the terrorists" to win your votes? Are you people fools? Or maybe you are just 14 years old?

There's one truly progressive candidate in this race, more progressive than any candidate in a long time that's had a realistic shot at winning. But I guess his platform just isn't dramatic enough for you kids. Maybe he should stop talking about unglamorous things like making the government more transparent, empowering the poor and disenfranchised to have a voice in their government, making individual legislators accountable for their spending, making sure that all children have equal access to education, and making sure that civil rights and liberties and due process are strictly enforced. Instead he should create a silly mythical monster to fight like Edwards has done.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

But one of them is consistently reframing today's political realities in precisely the same disempowering (to us) way the GOP and right-leaning mainstream media do. And his name is "Obama."

If you think corporatism is a silly mythical monster, Obama is not a bad choice for you. But I think you may be happier still with Romney or McCain. If I'm wrong about that, more's the pity.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

And stop repeating your assertion that Obama is progressive. Your assertion counts for squat even when you repeat it.


Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on


Thanks for that response. It instantly humanized this internet communication and made me regret the somewhat overzealous way I stated both my above comments.

All I want to really say is, look long and hard into Obama's record and you'll see he is sincerely committed to and has fought for very progressive ideas and causes. Making government transparent is the way to end the influence of corporations over our legislators. The approach is progressive and pragmatic at the same time. If progressives miss this opportunity, don't expect it to come again for a very very long time.

As for Edwards, I doubt his sincerity based on his record not matching his words. The Iraq war is a key example. If I could see that it was a sham from the moment Bush started talking about it, why couldn't he? I think he's just changing his tune with the times. And even if it was an honest mistake on his part and he's truly come around, if his judgement was so horrendously wrong on such an important issue, what reason do I have to think that he'll have better judgement the next time around? I just don't.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Such as... "the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms."

So, he kind of is saying that he is a progressive. Just not one of the bad, heathen kind that has weak morality skillz.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

In that quote he's not saying he is a progressive, but that "some progressives" (other, bad, people) have prevented "us" (Obama and members of a group that is not specified) from effectively blah blah...

I would like Joseph to show us a quote with a link where Obama says unambigously that he is a Progressive.

And, Joseph, I'm not going to look long and hard into Obama's anything. If you're supporting him and you want to persuade me it's YOUR job to bring quotes and examples to me.

Otherwise you sound just like all the other Obamabots that have come through here: big on enthusiasm and short on specifics.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... the "some progressives" / "us" construction.

But I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he does, indeed, think he's the one, good progressive Democrat in a sea of bickering, divisive Satanists that no one wants to vote for and who have never accomplished anything. Can't a guy have a little faith?

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

OK, I found a quote all on my own where Obama says he's a "progressive Democrat".

It could be that reason for the antipathy to the Obama campaign on this blog (besides the logical and substantiated reasons documented in numerous posts) is due to the super-annoying nature of OFB trolls.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Look, Obama is fully committed to empowering the disenfranchised, protecting the civil rights in a broad sense, and making government transparent. He is committed to eliminating systemic unfairness to create a more truly fair society.

He got his political start almost 2 decades ago by organizing drives for voters in poor communities in Chicago. A major legislative accomplishment of Obama in illinois was to require police to videotape all interrogations. He got this passed against the initial resistance by the Republicans, many democrats (they didn't want to appear soft on crime), and the Police department itself.

He's strongly committed to government spending transparency, wanting to pass reforms so that anyone can see which legislators are giving away money, and to who. He has already played a big part in passing what almost everyone agrees to be landmark ethics reform in both Illinois and at the federal level (even though Clinton mocks it). But importantly, he doesn't feel those reforms go far enough.

He is 100% pro-choice and has received outstanding ratings from Planned Parenthood and other choice groups.

He is 100% for the separation of church and state.

One of the things he speaks most passionately about is the need to improve education for children, especially children in the poorest communities.

In the midst of the drumbeat to war, he stood up and said this is a dumb war and we shouldn't do it and it'll turn into a mess if we do. If anyone can remember back to that time, the mood of the country was such that those who spoke against the war were almost labeled a traitor. He didn't have to stand up and say that because he was only a state senator. But he risked his career and said it and attended anti-war rallies.

He's the only candidate I know of who seems to sincerely understand the potential of technology and the internet to make government more democratic and our leaders more accountable. Lawrence Lessig, who has devoted himself to fight restrictive copyright legislation and more recently to fight for more open government, gives this wholehearted endorsement of Obama:

I could go on but this is getting to long. There's plenty of information out there. I think if you take the time to look through Obama's past, I think you'll see that not only does his story ad up, but that he's sincere. Maybe those things I've mentioned aren't progressive by the standards of some people, but they look good to me.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

I see no quotes and no links to sources where Obama says he's progressive.

You are just repeating your opinions as to what Obama stands for, which is totally unpersuasive to me. Classic W.O.R.M.

Engaging you in conversation has been a huge waste of my time so I'm going to do what is recommended with all trolls: I'm not going to feed you.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

shystee, you're right, I guess it is my job. I'm afraid if I post much more it'll start to look like spamming, but I'll just ad one last thing. This is the link to Obama's blueprint for change. It's a long document broken into issues and gives a pretty good idea of where Obama officially stands on things:

I think I've given a decent answer above plus the link in this post. Also, if you know or like Lawrence Lessig, I also highly suggest you read his endorsement (also linked to in above comment). Hopefully I've answered the accusation that I'm just another OFB, as you seem to call us. Also, just want to say that after reading all the posts on this blog, the discussion seems to be a very sincere one. It's a very refreshing change from other discussion boards. If I see a correntewire story on digg, I'll definitely digg it up! Thanks!

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

shystee: I seriously was not trying to troll. I don't understand why you want a link to Obama "saying" he's progressive. Why does it matter what he calls himself? Isn't what he's done more important? All I've been trying to say is that his record SHOWS that he's committed to a progressive agenda (by my standards anyway). To be honest, I'm not sure if I've ever read somewhere where he calls himself progressive.

Submitted by lambert on

1. It's important that Obama use the word "progressive" because self-identification is important. For example, when Krugman (yes, I know the name is a hate trigger for some) identifies as a "liberal," that shows he's courageous in the face of relentless right wing demonization of the the word.

2. It continues to amaze me how many OFB regard the Obama campaign site as in any way important or authoritative, and not just his: any campaign site. In a year, all the web pages and the white papers and the yadda yadda yadda will be forgotten, disappeared, and as if they had never been. What people will remember is the talking points and the rhetoric (like "read my lips, no new taxes," or "it's the economy, stupid") because that's what the candidates are running on. They stay relentlessly on message for a reason. That's why Obama's consistent use of right wing dogwhistles, and the even more consistent use of right wing frames by the more bot-like members of the OFB, is of great concern to many of us here. What it tells me is that Obama will run and govern from the center right, despite or even perhaps because of the vacuous Unity rhetoric onto which people project whatever they want. So, the web site is almost completely irrelevant. It's like believing something because you found it on the Internet.

I should say, by the way, that Obama can change my view by an act of courage -- like filibustering FISA -- or even by sending some progressive dog whistles, but that my views are continuing to harden as he conforms more and more to the model above, at least in my mind.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

economic/stimuluswise on this too?

The Nation:

"... Barack Obama's proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well. ..."

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

"... Obama is absolutely wrong in his fundamental political analysis. The problem in America today is not a polarized political system in which Democrats and liberals are as equally to blame as Republicans and conservatives. The problem is a political system that's dominated by this sort of brain-dead political narrative. And the longer that Obama promulgates such brain-dead political narratives, the more he squanders his enormous potential.
..." --

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

while simultaneously managing to say nothing at all. Just like his speeches, which I'm frankly afraid to listen to lest I fall under his spell. To say nothing of that Orewellian campaign logo . . .

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

truly truly brilliant (as usual) from rudepundit--
-- Of Democratic Candidates and Gay Lovers (nsfw textwise)

"... So it was, speaking of obvious, that the winner of last night's Democratic debate was John Edwards, the odd average man out. While Obama and Clinton went at each other in an entertaining slap fight, there was Edwards, calmly speaking for the vast majority of Americans, even if that majority won't ever get to hear him. The only candidate to mention New Orleans during a Martin Luther King Day debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, Edwards articulated again and again the vision of economic justice and empowerment that eluded his rivals. And he had to fuckin' beg for air time while the other two squabbled over who hates Republicans more. ..."

This is the giant tragedy of 08--that the one candidate who most closely articulates what the majority of Americans really want is the most shut out and ignored, and that the most progressive candidate still in the running is actually the white Southern guy, and not the famous "firsts".

DCBlogger--that's disgusting--they didn't even read your message before sending out what they presumed you wanted to talk about. ugh.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

NAFTA? Welfare reform? Dont Ask, Don’t Tell? The Communications Decency Act? Easing media ownership laws? Defense of Marriage Act?

This is some of the legislation Bill Clinton signed into law, mostly in an effort to save his presidency after the disastrous failure of Hillary's healthcare reform bill lost congress to the Republicans.

Obama is right, Clinton didn't shift the American debate to progressive values. The Clintons just triangulated their way through the decade backward doing their best to ameliorate the worst aspects of Republican legislation.

In the end the man who told us "if we worked hard and played by the rules" broke the rules, got caught and allowed the Republicans to stifle any gains he could have made for us. We lost congress and he couldn't even help Al Gore become his successor. Mark Penn Hillary's union busting pollster said yesterday that Bill Clinton "changed the trajectory of American politics". That trajectory gave us George W. Bush as president.

If we nominate Hillary and she gets elected you can expect more of the same small bore efforts. These two won't build the huge mandate we need for the great changes that have to be made. There will be no coattails. They won't change the debate. They're not even trying.

As for Edwards I think Feingold did a pretty good take down of him. Edwards is running against virtually every vote he made in the senate. Is he sincere now? Yeah, probably a lot more sincere than we was then. But it's not his biography, his campaign speech reads like Feingold's record and Obama has actually fought those fights from the ground up his entire adult life.

Edwards has spent more on TV ads in SC than Hillary and Obama combined according to Chuck Todd MSNBC's
political analyst. With that kind of spending and his native son status he'd better do well in SC today or it's all over for him.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

None of the final 3 (sorry you had to go, Dennis) speaks in favor of civil rights for queers. Until one or more stands up for civil rights for ALL of us, they're not progressive enough for me.

Yeah, they all talk a good game in general, but each of them leaves out communities of people who have been overlooked and forgotten in this country. And ALL of them shy away from queers (except for Elizabeth E. and Al G. --- but they aren't running, are they?)

I'm not sayin' I won't vote for one of them if I have to (and I suppose I will have to in November, barring some miracle that would give us a true progressive). I'm just sayin' that none of them is willing to take on queer civil rights. All of them are trying to align themselves with the the movers and shakers of the civil rights movement. We queers were out in the streets then, too, (no, you didn't see us as queers then because we were also being lynched and beaten and murdered (actually, we STILL are in some states in this union)) and we've been out in the streets for every progressive cause in the many years before and after (okay, the log cabin republicans don't venture out into the streets except to hail a cab, but they're republicans, not progressives). But these so-called progressive candidates hide in their houses when it's time to support civil rights for queers. Thanks for nothing. Call me when we have a REAL progressive in the race.

Please, candidate fanatics, don't castigate me with your zealotry on behalf of your candidate. I challenge you to find queers (okay, use that milktoast term "gay") on your candidates' campaign sites. You won't; I've looked. Here's the extent to which the candidates addressed our rights in their campaigns:
1. Hillary is "pro" civil union, but not to the point of giving us the 1400+ benefits accorded to straight people when they get married.
2. Barack has to make decisions based on his religion's teachings, which makes it okay for him to hire a homophobic preacher to headline a campaign event and denounce us from the stage.
3. Edwards gets squeamish every time the issue is raised, but Elizabeth says she's working on him.

Wow. True progressives?

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

This is markg8's post, which I had to edit because it contained "bad" HTML that messed up the thread.

Excerpt from Obama's speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church (MLK's church)
Sunday, January 20th, 2008
Atlanta, Georgia

"For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.

The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation."

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

dykester, you're right, but at least one of them is bending over for homophobic pastors and "exgays" every chance he gets--and is running as a "Christian Candidate" too. That's more than enough reason to check him off the list.

Edwards is definitely persuadable--he's said so, and he hasn't used his religion to justify his lack, unlike Obama, who specifically has.

Clinton is weak, and didn't lift a finger for us in NY at all--esp during the court fight about marriage.

I have one more for you, vastleft: A False Brand of Hope: Obama's Chicago Approach --

"...Take something as horrendous as slavery, sprinkle in the words and deeds of great Americans like Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln and JFK and who can argue with that? Most people in their right mind would agree the abolition of slavery, the enactment of civil rights legislation and uniting the country around a common cause are inspiring events in U.S. history.

But because we agree with Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln and JFK is not reason enough to elect Barack Obama. This fact should remain entirely separate from what Obama says he will do for this country if elected. ..."