Wilbur and Orville's lost brother?

even those of us who knew all along do not want to hear such utter bs continually -- he's a fierce advocate of haters, not us.

he's a bigot but says it's about "dialogue" -- let him have the KKK speak then.

he believes in equal rights, but not for us.

he will work for us, but not -- ever.

My very dear friend, who will be 70 this week, saw the new Harvey Milk film and called me up to talk about it. She loved the film and Milk's fierce advocacy for queer civil rights. She lamented that we don't have more people like Harvey, then she said: "You know, I think there's a clear line connecting Harvey Milk and Barack Obama because they are both fierce advocates for the rights of all."

If she weren't one of my very dear friends, we would have fallen apart as friends during the primary because of her unwillingness to see anything but good in Obama and anything but bad in Clinton. But she's my friend and I love her, so that's what I'd told myself every time she opened up with the latest kool-aid propaganda. And that's what I told myself on Tuesday when she explained how Harvey and Obama were kindred spirits, with Obama picking up where Harvey left off. I didn't have the heart to tell her that Harvey would no more accept Obama's equivocation and milque-toast propositions than he accepted Brigg's attempt to force queers out of teaching. Harvey would have forced Obama to confront him and queer civil rights head on. And I'd like to think that, just like so many others here in SF in 1978, Harvey would have recruited Obama to stand in favor of civil rights for all and against the bigotry of people like Rich Warren.

"I have always said..." "I have consistently argued..."

Every time he prefaces a policy with that, he's now jumping on some new bandwagon. The guy is just a moral and political coward.

I was always shocked at LGBT client and friends who ardently worked for Obama's election. To me, that was one area in which Obama and McCain were pretty much the same. Rightwing (thus not very reliable) news sources are reporting that Obama's fierce and boldly progressive commitment to rescinding DADT is now being put off until 2010. I won't put a lot of stock in it until I see it from a more reliable source, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it's true.

Yes, let's have a dialogue over whether my cousin--a gay!--wanting to marry is on par with those who commit incest or child rape. Next: a dialogue over whether Obama being the offspring of a black and white is on par with treason against God or other acts of severe immorality. What's the harm? FOX "News" does this fair and balanced thing all the time. Hey, let's make it part of our school curriculum: "What's 2 plus 2? Some say 4, others say 22. Let's talk about the wide range of viewpoints!"

Honestly, I believe Obama chose Warren not because they disagree with each other, but the opposite. This is not a ploy, but a sincere expression of what he believes. Look past what he says to what he does.

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the outrage and belated realizations here are focused almost entirely on the fact that Warren is anti-gay. Of course there should be outrage (it IS outrageous), but what about all the other anti-what-should-be-progressive-values values Warren holds?

Where did the driving, disgusted, and almost obsessive outrage go that was directed at Palin for her anti-abortion views? Where did it go?

Where did the driving, disgusted, and almost obsessive outrage go that was directed at Clinton for her AUMF vote go? Where did it go?

Only the feministing and shakespearesister links even mention that Warren is also anti-woman (ok, to be fair, TM, who seems to have sprung a Kool-Aid leak lately, also raises the issue).

CNN concentrates almost entirely on the anti-gay angle, although possibly because no major women's group seems to have weighed in, or if they have, have weighed in with pretty tepid opposition.

N.O.W = nada. Emily's List, nothing. Planned Parenthood, also nothing (although they did "applaud" Daschle's appt to HHS Secretary).California NOW had this to say:

We aren't the only ones disappointed in Barack Obama's choice of anti-marriage-equality and anti-choice Rick Warren to speak at his Inauguration. And while we'd love to think this is an example of keeping enemies close to control them, it sends a dehumanizing message to incorporate someone with these kinds of views into the start of the Obama presidency.

followed by 4 paragraphs criticizing Warren's pick because he's anti-gay. (CA NOW's tepid first paragraph is one of the reasons I actively support very few 'mainstream' women's or feminist organizations).

Eleanor Smeal, as President of the Feminist Majority Foundation issued this stinging rebuke:

Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, expressed feminist concern saying "America is coming together for the historic Inauguration. Providing a visible ceremonial leadership role to a man who has chosen to use religion to divide rather than unite people is deeply troubling and disappointed." Warren, a prominent opponent of reproductive rights, has referred to legal abortion as a holocaust." He has taken the extreme position that efforts to reduce abortion rates are merely "a charade."

("expressed feminist concern"? are you freakin' kidding me?)

This list may not be entirely fair, as I've noticed it often takes some of the bigger orgs several days to react to news items, but:

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm perfectly capable of being disgusted and outraged by several things simultaneously. I can be (unsurprised but) outraged that Obama picked Warren because he's anti-gay AND anti-woman AND pro-war AND a creationist
AND 15 more reasons I can't even come up with right now because I'm so ticked off.

Plenty of feminist blogs are all over this, and discuss both the anti-gay and anti-woman views of Warren, but elsewhere, a big nada.

; >

for the whole world to see.

"Get over it" always means toward Obama / Republicans.