Monday, October 22, 2007

Dear Barack Obama,

I read this.

Then I took your link off my blog.

Then I took your pin off my trenchcoat.

As of now, you have lost my vote.
-----------------
Let's see if you can earn it back.

Sincerely Disappointed,

Grace

23 comments:

Army Girl said...

Your bf went to the dark side. Now the spin will that he is doing it because someone needs to have a dialog with this group and lead them to a more inclusive, logical discussion. In my opinion, logical conversation with religious zealots in not logical. Hmm...wonder who you'll vote for now?

Fannie said...

Gross.

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway, though.

PT-LawMom said...

:-( Very disappointing! For me, this is yet one more check in the "Vote for John Edwards" column.

psericks said...

Give Obama some time to respond. Why automatically hold him responsible for the comments of an entertainer on one of his tours?

There's no evidence that the Obama campaign even knew about these comments.

Grace said...

Psericks-

"Why automatically hold him responsible for the comments of an entertainer on one of his tours? "

Because, whether we like it or not, we are often judged by the company we keep. ESPECIALLY presidential candidates.

"There's no evidence that the Obama campaign even knew about these comments."

Arguing ignorance isn't going to win my vote back.


but I will give him time to respond. And he might be able to woo me back. I WANT to be woo'd back. It's just not going to be easy.

I feel like he cheated on me. And I need to vote for a president who will be faithful.

PS, I can already tell you that the lame monica lewinsky joke that someone is going to make as a result of that last statement WON'T be funny. So please don't do it.

Anonymous said...

Are those quotes from the Obama camp legit?

Jane Know said...

he never had my vote, anyway. yuck. there's something really fake/scarily religious about him. even by politician standards.

Anonymous said...

I understand your POV, but I'm basing my vote on voting records and articulated issue positions, not on something as random as this. I think that it's too harsh to write a candidate off on the basis of one person who is associated with an event that said candidate also happens to be associated with (sorry about that weird grammar), particularly when it's so out of step with the candidate's record.

Daisy Duke said...

Dear Presidential Candidates:

Decide and announce where you are on the issues.

Stick with it, even when its hard and tough and not popular at the country club or in your neighborhood back home or amongst your politican friends who are really there for the free swag and nifty DC office.

Stay out of airport bathrooms and the Senate Page rooms.

Monitor "your people" becuase if you arn't careful they can really, really screw you. See above post by Grace.

Anonymous said...

Queerty is the worst-written webpage I've ever seen. After about half their articles, I find myself baffled that they've remembered to tie their shoes in the morning. (I've just been thinking that for a while. Excuse that particular aside.)

Anyway, John Edwards is the only candidate that doesn't make me feel dirty.

That said, however, I think Barack can go in public with one stupid asshole without automatically getting crossed off my "well, if I HAVE to settle for less..." list.

Grace said...

Here's the thing:

First of all, I'm not writing him off yet. YET.

I've hoped, and believed that sooner or later he would take a true stand on the issue of gay rights. I continued to support him while I waited for him to do this, because I really thought he would. But he hasn't, and I won't support him until he does.

Maybe he still will. I WANT him to. I want to be on his side. I want to support him. But first, he has to show that he supports me.

Going "on tour" with someone who is famously anti-gay HAS to make me step back.

Why is this bad of me?

Harmless Error said...

It's not bad of you. You do your research. This is sooo disappointing. Why haven't I heard about this in the mainstream media??

Jane Know said...

grace,
i'm sure the people on here arguing with you to try to win back your obama vote haven't been affected by the gay rights issues themselves.
and because queerty has a "bad web page," is that supposed to make the facts go away?
that "one stupid asshole" he is going public with basically seeks to continue the repression of gay people by saying it's a choice, circa 1950s.
most the rest of the country has moved beyond that unfair thinking, even if Obama and the company he keeps hasn't.
ignorance is NO excuse. and i don't think he was ignorant anyway. he's a presidential candidate for fuck's sake.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous here, back from 6:54...

Obama *has* stated that he disagrees with McClurkin's views.

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthom

Sort of. The statement lacks any kind of "my mistake" component. It's not any kind of true stand, that's for damn sure.

At any rate, yes, I have been affected by "the gay rights issues." If, by that phrase, you're inquiring about my sexuality, then yeah, actually, I am gay. (Otherwise, why would I have a longstanding opinion about Queerty, which I hope I highlighted as being a digression, rather than an on-topic reply?) (Another aside, real quick: Being straight doesn't equal lack of regard for gay politics. I know my friends care about me, and consequently, I know that they want me to be equal; though everyone's affected by the issues in different ways, the cool kids ARE all in this together. Give my friends the credit they deserve.)

Anyway, Grace, I'm dismayed by Barack's conduct myself but I read the removal of the pin and link as an utter (but perhaps temporary) expulsion on the single mistake. I'd, personally, still grit my teeth and venture a vote on him. If l/g/b/t rights were the only issue, we'd all be throwing down for Gravel (and the HRC would have invited him to the debate).

Rachel M. said...

Sugar-coat, sugar-coat. I have too much proof of pussy sellouts in politics. I am a firm believer that social change comes when WE (the people) say it's time. Not when THEY (the government) tell us it's time. In being neutral or ambiguous in your stance (this includes flip-flopping and pandering) on an issue (i.e. gay rights) you rob it of the concept of "normalcy." not productive. Lack of integrity. Lack of courage. The approach should be "vote for me...gay rights and all." not, "well, hows about I pull back on gay rights? Then will you vote for me?" that's pussy shit. We need to demand the respect of not being the 1st thing to go when the pressure is on. If someone is willing to brush us under the rug now, who's to say they won't when it comes down to it later? A little courage under fire is what this country needs. I already don't have the rights I want. I’m not just going to vote for someone because they are NOT someone else. This is a job interview. Meet my criteria or you don't get the job. Here’s the deal, Rudy isn't that different than the democrats. Liberal. Cool with civil unions. So fine. Speak my language (gay MARRIAGE), or I’m not giving you the job. I won't vote for Rudy, I just won't vote. in fact if ALL "the gays" put that pressure on we'd either A) get what we want or B) hold our votes, allow the republicans to get re-elected and show them we're not f***ing around. Gay people, black people, Jewish people, working women...these people have been blindly voting for democrats for years JUST b/c they're not republicans. They take our votes for granted and therefore do NOTHING to attempt to win it, but rather cater to the "other side" to bring in the neutral vote. They do that by NOT promising the disenfranchised progress and therefore not threatening the "haves." and then they get elected by people for whom they do NOTHING. Bullshit. No more. Earn my vote.

Anonymous said...

it's on cnn.com's front page now.

Grace said...

Anonymous the one from 6:54 and 12:52. (perfect example why you should just pick a NAME, it's not like you have to register or sign in or anything. Just don't call yourself anonymous.)-

Let me try again to reiterate. I want Obama to do the right thing. And if we does, he will win me back. If he doesn't he will not. I have waited for him to REALLY stand by the LGBT community. And waited. And waited. And believed. And hoped. And waited some more. And then he goes "on tour" with Reverend Anti-Gay. that's not standing by the lgbt community.

I'm still waiting. And hoping. I WANT him to win my vote back. I WANT TO WEAR MY "BARACK OUT WITH YOUR COCK OUT" shirt!!!!

At this stage of his career, and of the election, he should KNOW that everything he does makes a statement. So his actions just told me that he doesn't have a whole lotta respect for the LGBT community.

In the alternative, if he DOESN'T recognize that his actions make a statement, then I'm double glad I took his pin off.

Going on tour with Donnie McClurkin will not make me feel good about voting for him and I am entitled to feel good about the person I vote for.

ok and I just got bored with myself. bye

vieve said...

I feel so disillusioned. Can someone bring me back?

Jane Know said...

Grace, I agree about the "Anonymous" bit. Pick a name or something, because the last thing anyone here wants is another creepy "Anonymous" telling all of us lesbians to commit suicide. Generally anonymous commenters hide behind that label when they want to use hate speech and attack groups of people.

Sorry if I was offensive. For all I knew, you were some Opine Idiot trolling around here just waiting for a fight. Calling out a source like that sounded really sophomoric, like something one of them would say.

For the record, "Anonymous" I do KNOW that not all straight people oppose gay rights. And not all gay people actually want equality...or care about gay marriage. If that's what you implied from what I wrote, then perhaps I should re-word it, because I could certainly could have been spared a lecture on who to give credit to and how all groups are affected by equality for gays.

I have little tolerance for apathy. And little tolerance for those who stand idly by and let other groups get shat upon for no good reason. And to me, that's what it looks like Obama is doing. He doesn't quite care enough about gay equality to take a firm stance. Just like most of the rest of the f-ing candidates, really.

lilly said...

does that mean i will never get the "Barack out with your cock out" t-shirt you ordered for me?!??

Brita said...

Yucky...Barack what are you doing?? Seriously to all you guys thinking he doesn't have an agenda...he's clearly going after the black religious vote. Too bad he's losing another in the process.

m. said...

it looks like barack added an opening gay minister to his concert lineup, probably to allievate the disaster. But Curkin stays. What a way to fuckup a generally good campaign but it may show what hes just like another other mainstream contender looking to pander to as many people as possible.

The Enabler said...

Got to post something here. This one is specifically directed to a comment made by Rachael M. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I read that to say that not voting is a way to show your displeasure. I cannot stress enough DO NOT try to use this tactic.

Politicians only see what they want to see. If people don't turn up for an election, it is never regarded by the politicians as an indictment of them. It is because the Republicans were forcibly keeping good Democrats from the polls and engaged in election fraud. Or it is because the Democrats again showed that they are lazy and cannot be expected to actually act on what they preach. Not a single politician out there thinks that a lack of voter turnout is because he or she sucks as an individual. Their advisors would not allow them to think this way.

So the answer here is ABSOLUTELY show up at the polls. And turn in a blank ballot. That is counted as a vote of no confidence. This information registers as "wow, these people actually took the time and effort to come to the polls and submit their vote for NO ONE because everyone sucks so bad." That is the only way to get the national party leaders to reconsider who they nominate for office.

So get out. Voice your opinion by registering to vote, showing up at the polls, and entering a "no vote" for any office that you do not support a candidate. It is a quantifiable election result and speaks volumes for voter dissatisfaction.

On a side note, but back to the post topic. I think Barack is in a tough spot right now, specifically because he is trying to pander to everyone. Eventually, he is going to have to pick some key points, form an opinion, and stick to them. But for now, I could completely see his advisors trying to keep him as middle of the road as possible, at least until the Democratic bid is handed out, and then starting to polarize him. This part of the campaign for both sides is always characterized by a race to seee who can attract as many different subsets of people as possible. Once it is down to a single Dem and a GOP candidate, the hardlining and distancing from each other will begin in earnest.