But, even though it is their right, I don’t think it appropriate to do it at a function such as the Oscars, especially when they don’t know what the hell they are talking about. I watch the news and political commentary shows ALL the time. I watch the Oscars to be entertained, and escape in the magic and glamour that is Hollywood. It really ruins the evening for me to listen to Sean Penn try to make a political statement, but comes off hypocritical instead.

This is Penn’s acceptance speech, winning for his portrayal of Harvey Milk:

“For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, and, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.

And there are these last two things. I’m very, very proud to live in a country that’s willing to elect an elegant man President.”

So, what bugs me so bad about his comments? I think you know.

How about the fact that Obama does not support gay marriage. How about the fact that Obama, although he finds Prop 8 “unnecessary”, thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. So, Obama does not believe in equality for all.

“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”

Wow, how about that for taking a stand! Unnecessary? Such strong language. ha

And does Sean Penn realize that the very people that elected this *elegant* man as President, are the same people in California that passed Prop 8. Prop 8 passed in California because of Mr. Elegant’s supporters, in large part, I believe, because Obama voiced his opposition to gay marriage.

And does Sean Penn realize that Obama refused to march in Gay Rights parades? Or that Obama refused to be photographed in San Francisco with Mayor Gavin Newsom?

“But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.

One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me,” Newsom told Reuters, “even though I’ve done fundraisers for that particular person – not once, but twice – because of this issue.”

Does Sean Penn know about Obama’s anti-gay road show down in South Carolina, that was headlined by Donnie McClurkin, who says you can pray your way out of gay, and featured Mary Mary, who have compared gays to murderers and prostitutes and Hezekiah Walker, a minister, traditionally inhospitable to gays, and, heads a Brooklyn mega-church well-known for its anti-gay views.

And did Sean Penn forget about Obama asking Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration?

“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomonese, wrote Obama Wednesday. “We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”

So, Sean Penn supports gay marriage, and speaks out for equality, fine. I agree.

But I have a huge problem with Penn excusing the President, who is guilty of the same “hatred”. Instead of Penn telling the President to reflect in his own shame, and telling Obama his beliefs equal hatred, he calls Obama elegant.

If you are going to take a stand and speak out, in front of the world, at least have your facts straight. If you are going to call out certain people for their bigotry, call them ALL out. Not just the in-elegant ones.

Do you think Harvey Milk would support Obama’s stand on gay marriage?

Considering how outspoken Penn was on the Bush administration, and attacking Bush for killing innocent people, and stepping on the constitution and calling for them to be in *f*cking jail*, I wonder how long it will take for Penn to go after President Elegant, and his support of some of Bush’s policies, his plans to move troops to Afghan, and the continuation of rendition.

And, do you think *elegant* is code for something else? What makes Obama so elegant? Because he is articulate? (well, except when he is working without a teleprompter.) Because he is not Southern? (except when he is campaining down south, then he sure seems southern, doens’t he?) Because he is thin? (and the sun glints off his pecs?) Because he eats arugula? Because he isn’t from Texas? I mean, what exactly was Penn trying to say with that comment? Hmmm…

UPDATE:
Maria Conchita Alonso, who co-starred with Sean Penn way back in 1988’s “Colors,” went off on Penn in a way we’ve rarely seen — basically saying he’s a moron when it comes to politics — especially his support of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The Cuban born actress was raised in Venezuela and says Chavez is a “killer.”

Richard Cohen’s sister is canceling her inauguration party because of President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to bless Mr. Obama’s taking the office of the Presidency of the United State.

According to her brother’s column in the Washington Post, what made her do this is the way in which Mr. Obama’s choice to pick this pastor for this occasion serves as a special sort of condoning of Mr. Warren’s views about gays and lesbians.

I agree with Richard Cohen, and apparently his sister, that these views should be regarded as totally unacceptable by anybody who has any sense of the importance of civil rights and indeed of human rights. I also agree with Richard Cohen’s view that as a somebody running for the office of President and who was at the time a U.S. Senator, Mr. Obama had a particular responsibility for denouncing his then-pastor’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, for giving the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a special award during the primary season.

I find it troubling that neither Mr. Cohen nor apparently his sister have not been, as far as I can tell, overly concerned by President-Elect Obama’s equally eloquent silence and inaction regarding the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and her supporters, particularly the sophomoric expression of these attitudes by Jon Favreau, the man writing President-elect Obama’s inaugural address. (I shudder to think what the reaction of the Cohen family would have been if Favreau had been found on YouTube horsing around calling somebody a “homo” – maybe then Richard Cohen’s sister would join us in our demand that the President-Elect fire this sophomoric bigot as his chief speech-writer. Whether a bigot is slick (Warren) or juvenile (Favreau), he is still a bigot.)

It is tempting to forget in this sort of dynamic who the real problem is. As is clear from what I have written so far, I wish Richard Cohen and his sister would be, respectively, writing about and canceling inauguration parties as much over Mr. Obama’s inaction in the face of sexism and misogyny as they are in the face of anti-Semitism and gay-bashing. And yes, I wish that Richard Cohen’s sister had paid attention to and given greater weight to the fact that she had the option to work to elect somebody who, both as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate, repeatedly marched in Pride parades and met with editors of gay newspapers across the country rather than working for somebody who would not even have his photograph taken with Gavin Newsome.

But I am not falling into the trap that lies that way. Just because people got it wrong before does not mean they cannot help matters now. People can learn. So despite the bit of complaining above, I am not going to point a finger at Richard Cohen’s sister (or, for that matter, at Katha Pollitt for decrying the misogyny involved in the Warren choice when Pollitt, like Richard Cohen’s sister, opted to support Mr. Obama for the presidency when it was already obvious that he was complacent, to say the least, about sexism and misogyny). I am just pleased that they are starting to pay attention now and apparently coming to understand better who they voted for. To quote Richard Cohen: “The real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.”

Aye, there’s the rub. During the primary season and the general election a friend of mine who spent some considerable amount of time listening to me lament the Democratic Party’s poor judgment in making then-Senator Obama their poster-child, kept saying to me that the real problem with Mr. Obama is that he is an “empty suit”.

That term seemed to me too tepid back then. But I have come to see it as the essential problem behind the problem of Mr. Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader, and possibly any kind of leader. To be a moral leader, to stand for something means that you have to fill out your suit, your office, your position. To be an “empty suit” is to be a person who cannot draw a line in the sand, precisely because you do not have an arm and hand within that suit to use to reach out and draw that line. To be an “empty suit” is to be devoid of the weightiness that real leadership requires, including the gravitas to admit to a mistake and change one’s position (drop the bigoted minister and lose the bigoted speechwriter; say you have been wrong to dig in your heels rather than listen to the concerns of so many of the people who worked so hard to elect you). To be an “empty suit” is to be a moral vacuum.

I refused to vote for John McCain for a number of reasons but among them was the fact that while I knew he had the capacity for moral leadership, I did not care for the directions toward which his moral commitments would lead my country. I refused to vote for Barack Obama because I knew he came up empty on the capacity for moral leadership.

In some ways, moral emptiness, especially in a President, is worse than moral wrong-headedness. The morally wrong-headed leader takes a stand, e.g. George W. Bush’s legitimization of torture, and one can rally people against the stand she or he takes. The morally empty leader takes no stand. Under these circumstances, her or his silences often allow people to forget that the blank that exists in lieu of a leader is the appropriate target of criticism. After all, it seems easier to go after people who actually do take stands (Rick Warren, for example) rather than the person who silently enables wrong-headed person to gain in stature. But this is sleight of hand. The real problem is the enabler, the person who allows the sophomoric sexist to put words in his mouth, the person who lets bigoted clerics and their churches affiliate with him.

So, to Richard Cohen’s sister and to Katha Pollitt, I say welcome to my party – the one that got lost in 2008, the one that expected moral leadership of a certain kind from a Democratic president. Now that you are here, I hope you can help me figure out what we are going to do with the empty suit about to occupy the Oval Office. If that empty suit thinks he can pick up sufficient evangelical money and votes in 2012, he is not going to listen to bloggers and op-ed columnists whose votes and followers he thinks he can replace with the support of the evangelicals, regardless of the detestable content of many of their views and some of their conduct. Personally, I do not think we can give the empty suit the sort of backbone necessary to resist the lure of that support. If we cannot give this empty suit some backbone, we need, as I have written before, to start figuring out how we can have a better candidate on offer in 2012. So to the people who are canceling their celebrations, may I suggest that they use the time and effort saved to start solving that problem. We need to coalesce now around somebody who can fight for a nomination by a major Party – probably the the Party formerly recognizable as the Democratic one – who is what Obama’s supporters hoped he would be and what I fear he is not.

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is “between a man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay marriage.”

At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state’s Supreme Court recently recognized.

“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary,” Obama told MTV. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

In other words, he will triangulate on the backs of gay men, lesbians, transsexuals and Others in a vain attempt to curry favor with Christian conservatives and other assorted homophobes who will never vote for him. Some will call Obama’s heteronormativizing discourse nuanced, while those of us who are LGBT will view it for what it is: unrestrained and untempered homophobia couched in subtle but nonetheless injurious terms. Besides, his personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Indeed, it is a constitutional problem, a Civil Rights problem, not a problem of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has a long and elaborate history of homophobia, while Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, has a record of vetoing homophobic legislation and of defending the rights of same sex couples. I revive an article I wrote on this subject last month:

——————————–

BARACK OBAMA’s COMPULSIVELY REPEATED GAY BASHING RISKS THE LOSS OF A KEY VOTING BLOCK

Obama never had the support of the LGBT community. Indeed, 63% of LGBT Democrats supported Hillary Clinton during the California primary, while a paltry 29% cast their votes for Barack Obama. I imagine LGBT support for Clinton was equally strong in other states, for according to a poll conducted last November, this constituency favored Clinton by a staggering 41 point margin.

There are reasons the LGBT community supported Clinton over Obama: Obama refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom in 2004, when the San Francisco Mayor was the center of a national uproar for his support of gay marriage; Obama participated in a gay bashing “Gospel Tour” in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an African-American minister who views homosexuality as a disease Jesus Christ can cure; Obama cites his Christianity when he mentions his opposition to gay marriage in his text entitled The Audacity of Hope; Obama stigmatizes and minoritizes gay marriage when he refers to it as such in his political speeches and texts; Obama admits to seeking spiritual counsel from a certain Rev. James T. Meeks, a homophobic minister in inner city Chicago who was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement;” Obama refuses to march in gay pride parades; and Obama will not allow himself to be interviewed by the LGBT press. Because Obama has a record of homophobic speech, actions and affiliations, the LGBT community rallied behind Hillary Clinton. And they may rally behind McCain-Palin, for Obama’s continued disrespect for this constituency will compel many LGBT voters to reconsider their support for the homophobic Democrat.

Obama, according to The Advocate, will launch a gay bashing “Faith, Values and Family” tour with homophobic Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. I quote with added emphasis:

The Christian Broadcasting Network is reporting that the Obama campaign next week will kick off “Barack Obama: Faith, Family, and Values Tour,” designed to woo the votes of left-leaning Catholics, progressive Evangelicals, and some conservative mainline Protestants. If LGBT people find the tour eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina gospel tour the campaign arranged last year with antigay “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, their instincts may not be far off.

CBN names Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec as one of the religious surrogates who will hit the road stumping for Obama. Kmiec wrote a June 13 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting California’s Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, titled “On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California Amend Its Constitution? Say ‘No’ to the Brave New World.” Kmiec’s first two sentences in the piece read, “The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state supreme court’s judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense.”

Obama, in other words, will campaign with a legal scholar who believes “a millennia” of “tradition,” “common sense” and homophobia should be preserved. Kmiec, by the way, is the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Republican jurisprudence is the change in which the LGBT community can believe, I guess.

But it gets worse, for Kmiec writes the following in his 13 JUN op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. I quote with emphasis added again:

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature – a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth – claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

According to Kmiec, gay marriage is a harbinger for a social eugenics that manipulates the human genome in the name of maintaining social hierarchies. A threat to democracy, the LGBT community in Kmiec’s warped mind is attempting to eliminate the heterosexual population. Raising specters gleaned from science fiction novels, Kmiec stokes the fires of a fear of a queer planet.

For some reason Barack Obama finds this entirely acceptable. Indeed, Barack Obama desires to use the campaign funds he has collected from Democrats and from members of the LGBT community to give this Catholic legal scholar of the lunatic, Republican fringe a platform in Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. If we witness a spike in hate crimes against the LGBT community in any of these states before votes are cast in November, we will only have Barack Obama and Douglas Kmiec to blame.

We also know who to blame if Barack Obama loses the general election. For the LGBT community does not take too kindly to gay bashing in the name of garnering votes from Evangelicals and other conservative Christians. Barack Obama never had our votes, and he certainly will not gain them if he continues to terrorize devout Christians with the specter of a queer planet.

Obama, by the way, refuses to attend LGBT Democratic events: Michelle Obama was the one who addressed the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City in June, and she was the one who headlined the lunch for LGBT delegates in Denver during the August convention. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found. But then again, the man who has received spiritual guidance from homophobic ministers probably fears that the audience would try to genetically clone him into a gay man.

How odd it is that the Democratic Presidential candidate is a gay basher and the Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a woman who vetoed anti-gay legislation. While Obama is routinely criticized in the LGBT press for his homophobia, Sarah Palin receives accolades from Gay.com for joining the cause of the ACLU and nine homosexual couples employed by the state of Alaska and by the city of Anchorage. Perhaps the LGBT community is one of those constituencies Barack Obama and Donna Brazile believe they can shed as so much toxic waste from the Democratic Party’s past. If this is the case, then I guess the LGBT community should consider supporting the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, Palin supported the community while Obama was bashing it with Donnie McClurkin and Reverend James T. Meeks.

And now Obama will bash the community with the former legal counsel to the Bush and Reagan administrations in 12 states. While this may yield one or two Evangelical votes for Barack Obama, Obama’s continued and unrestrained gay bashing will also result in tens if not hundreds of thousands of LGBT votes for John McCain and Sarah Palin. For similar to the Evangelicals and conservative Christians Obama and Kmiec will court, the LGBT community votes “ALL our values.”

Also see Reverend Amy’s essay on Barack Obama’s second gay bashing tour.

—————————————–

Read Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy’s essays for more compelling reasons to reject and rebuff Barack Obama on the grounds that he is a raging homophobe who has a long record of bashing and exploiting the LGBT community.

Because Obama has a pattern of demonizing the LGBT community in a vain attempt to gain the support of Christian conservatives and others who will never support him, I ask the LGBT community to cast their votes for McCain/Palin or for a third party candidate who actually supports the community.

A vote for Obama aids and abets the gratuitous gay bashing of a representative of a Party that has traditionally defended our rights and freedoms. If we desire to ensure LGBT will have a voice in the Democratic Party, we will reject Barack Obama. It is really that simple.

There are reasons the LGBT community supported Clinton over Obama: Obama refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom in 2004, when the San Francisco Mayor was the center of a national uproar for his support of gay marriage; Obama participated in a gay bashing “Gospel Tour” in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an African-American minister who views homosexuality as a disease Jesus Christ can cure; Obama cites his Christianity when he mentions his opposition to gay marriage in his text entitled The Audacity of Hope; Obama stigmatizes and minoritizes gay marriage when he refers to it as such in his political speeches and texts; Obama admits to seeking spiritual counsel from a certain Rev. James T. Meeks, a homophobic minister in inner city Chicago who was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement;” Obama refuses to march in gay pride parades; and Obama will not allow himself to be interviewed by the LGBT press. Because Obama has a record of homophobic speech, actions and affiliations, the LGBT community rallied behind Hillary Clinton. And they may rally behind McCain-Palin, for Obama’s continued disrespect for this constituency will compel many LGBT voters to reconsider their support for the homophobic Democrat.

Obama, according to The Advocate, will launch a gay bashing “Faith, Values and Family” tour with homophobic Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. I quote with added emphasis:

The Christian Broadcasting Network is reporting that the Obama campaign next week will kick off “Barack Obama: Faith, Family, and Values Tour,” designed to woo the votes of left-leaning Catholics, progressive Evangelicals, and some conservative mainline Protestants. If LGBT people find the tour eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina gospel tour the campaign arranged last year with antigay “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, their instincts may not be far off.

CBN names Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec as one of the religious surrogates who will hit the road stumping for Obama. Kmiec wrote a June 13 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting California’s Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, titled “On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California Amend Its Constitution? Say ‘No’ to the Brave New World.” Kmiec’s first two sentences in the piece read, “The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state supreme court’s judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense.”

Obama, in other words, will campaign with a legal scholar who believes “a millennia” of “tradition,” “common sense” and homophobia should be preserved. Kmiec, by the way, is the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Republican jurisprudence is the change in which the LGBT community can believe, I guess.

But it gets worse, for Kmiec writes the following in his 13 JUN op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. I quote with emphasis added again:

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature – a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth – claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

According to Kmiec, gay marriage is a harbinger for a social eugenics that manipulates the human genome in the name of maintaining social hierarchies. A threat to democracy, the LGBT community in Kmiec’s warped mind is attempting to eliminate the heterosexual population. Raising specters gleaned from science fiction novels, Kmiec stokes the fires of a fear of a queer planet.

For some reason Barack Obama finds this entirely acceptable. Indeed, Barack Obama desires to use the campaign funds he has collected from Democrats and from members of the LGBT community to give this Catholic legal scholar of the lunatic, Republican fringe a platform in Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. If we witness a spike in hate crimes against the LGBT community in any of these states before votes are cast in November, we will only have Barack Obama and Douglas Kmiec to blame.

We also know who to blame if Barack Obama loses the general election. For the LGBT community does not take too kindly to gay bashing in the name of garnering votes from Evangelicals and other conservative Christians. Barack Obama never had our votes, and he certainly will not gain them if he continues to terrorize devout Christians with the specter of a queer planet.

Obama, by the way, refuses to attend LGBT Democratic events: Michelle Obama was the one who addressed the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City in June, and she was the one who headlined the lunch for LGBT delegates in Denver during the August convention. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found. But then again, the man who has received spiritual guidance from homophobic ministers probably fears that the audience would try to genetically clone him into a gay man.

How odd it is that the Democratic Presidential candidate is a gay basher and the Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a woman who vetoed anti-gay legislation. While Obama is routinely criticized in the LGBT press for his homophobia, Sarah Palin receives accolades from Gay.com for joining the cause of the ACLU and nine homosexual couples employed by the state of Alaska and by the city of Anchorage. Perhaps the LGBT community is one of those constituencies Barack Obama and Donna Brazile believe they can shed as so much toxic waste from the Democratic Party’s past. If this is the case, then I guess the LGBT community should consider supporting the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, Palin supported the community while Obama was bashing it with Donnie McClurkin and Reverend James T. Meeks.

And now Obama will bash the community with the former legal counsel to the Bush and Reagan administrations in 12 states. While this may yield one or two Evangelical votes for Barack Obama, Obama’s continued and unrestrained gay bashing will also result in tens if not hundreds of thousands of LGBT votes for John McCain and Sarah Palin. For similar to the Evangelicals and conservative Christians Obama and Kmiec will court, the LGBT community votes “ALL our values.”

Also see Reverend Amy’s essay on Barack Obama’s second gay bashing tour.

This is how she describes the Convention:

I listen to the leaders of our party talk about us all “coming together” when a candidate is chosen, fully understanding now that perhaps it is a forgone conclusion that nominee will be Obama based not on what the people want, but on what the party leaders want.

My friend has been a loyal Democrat for over 30 years. She has lived in Denver and Boulder, and has spent her life committed to progressive causes and equality. I am stunned when she tells me she can’t support Obama. This is a voice the super delegates need to hear, I think. I ask her to give me a brief biography. Here’s how she describes herself:

49 year old white female…Lived in Colorado for 21 years. In a committed relationship for nine years. Veteran of the US Army. Undergraduate degree in Sociology. Police officer for 13 years. Currently employed as a criminal investigator. Prior to that, worked as a volunteer, counselor, management in domestic violence shelters. Have also previously worked in the education field at the collegiate level for three different colleges/universities. I consider myself a Democrat and have primarily voted for Democratic candidates since I began voting at the age of 18…Very patriotic, believe it is my right and responsibility to vote.

It is one thing for on-line activists to write posts saying we’re not supporting Obama; we’ve been abused, cursed, and banned from every progressive site but a handful. It’s another thing for a progressive like my friend to say she can’t support Obama:

I have given a lot of thought to whether or not I could support Obama for president and the truth is, I can’t. I don’t believe he is the right candidate. I don’t believe he can make the right changes and the immediate impact the Clinton can and I don’t believe that those supporting Clinton will vote for him. He has not been able to tell me what he will do, only “yes we can,” chanted over and over again by his supporters who when questioned cannot tell me why they support him. This is not about race and it is not about gender. It is about who is the right person for the job.

Powerful words spoken honestly. I could see that it pained her to say that she couldn’t support Obama; she knows she will be contributing to a likely McCain presidency. But at some point over these months there was a deal-breaker for her. Perhaps it was Obama smearing the Clintons as racists, or his silence on the rampant sexism, or Obama refusing to be photographed with San Fransisco Mayor Newsom. Maybe it was when Obama crudely equated Geraldine Ferraro’s under-the-radar comment with 20 years of hate sermons by his pastor, maybe it was bitter-gate and Obama’s elitist attitude, maybe it was Ayers, Dohrn, and Rezko. It might have been disgust at the media’s relentlessly biased reporting. Perhaps there was no one deal-breaker and it was cumulative.

The primary reason so many of us cannot support Obama, I believe, is our disappoint and disgust at the Democratic Party’s utter incompetence with the primary schedule. In the mind of Hillary supporters there is an alternate sequence of events: last summer Howard Dean finds a way for Florida and Michigan to vote and for their votes to be counted. Hillary wins those states handily and takes on a huge delegate lead. That lead propels her to other victories and the nomination.

But instead we’re stuck in Al Gore’s Twilight Zone, a place where the popular vote winner and better candidate is asked to give up what should rightfully be hers. Taylor Marsh writes about Clinton supporters in general but she could be talking about my friend specifically:

Clinton’s supporters don’t understand why the woman with the big vote total is being pushed out. Brokering a nominee who refuses to count Michigan and Florida is not their idea of democracy from the Democratic Party, which they’ve supported for decades. Barack Obama stands for everything they’ve come to loathe this primary season, the sexism, his silence about it, his own complicity in it, the disrespect of Senator Clinton, the list is indelibly marked in each Clinton supporter’s brain.

One voice can be dismissed as an anomaly. My experience from talking to other Hillary supporters, however, is that my friend represents many, many Democrats and the polling supports mass defections if Obama is nominated. We will not be blackmailed into voting for a candidate whose campaign tactics we despise and for a Party who has failed us.

What a stand-up guy. He’s always got his hand out for the “green.” But he is NOT there to stand up for those to whom he has his hand out.

This newspaper ad has gone “viral” in the gay community, across the nation. Below, from the original San Francisco Chronicle article. First, The Advocate story, “Obama Snubbed Newsom During S.F.’s Gay Marriage Fight,” on a tumultuous time for San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and for the gay community — and that now infamous snub by Barack Obama (anyone care to speculate why the snub?), confirmed firsthand by former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown:

During his Senate run for Illinois, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who at the time was in the center of a national turmoil over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in the city.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday that the snub took place at a fund-raiser in 2004 hosted by former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown.

“I gave a fund-raiser, at his [Obama's] request at the Waterfront restaurant,” Brown told the Chronicle. “And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.”

While the Obama campaign has denied the rumors, Newsom’s staff has corroborated the event. In a Reuters interview in January 2007, Newsom alluded to the event when asked about his thoughts on potential Democratic candidates Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore. He was also asked about his peers’ reaction to his allowing same-sex marriages, which some allege helped Republicans by introducing a wedge issue in an election year. …

From the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008:

Obama snub still rankles Newsom

Seeing Mayor Gavin Newsom on the national stage with former president Bill Clinton on Monday night is a reminder of how political winds can change. On the eve of the biggest night of the presidential primaries, Newsom shared the spotlight during a town hall meeting staged and broadcast on cable TV and satellite radio by the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign.

But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.
“I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama’s) request at the Waterfront restaurant,” said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. “And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.”

Today, of course, Obama’s people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it “a ridiculous story.”

“Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time,” Hildebrand said. “Including me, his deputy campaign manager.”

But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom’s staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn’t forgotten it either. …

Hillary Clinton? Her support for the community is well-known. Here’s but one example, a 2007 press release from the campaign:

Clinton Campaign Announces Launch Of LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee

On the eve of the 38th anniversary of Stonewall, Hillary for President announced the formation of “LGBT Americans for Hillary,” a national steering committee of over 65 leaders in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Members of the steering committee include LGBT elected officials, activists from national LGBT and Democratic Party political groups as well as leaders from the worlds of business, entertainment and sports. This leadership committee will work with the campaign on several areas including political outreach, communications, policy advice and counsel, and fundraising.

“I’ve seen how Hillary Clinton’s experience, commitment, and leadership have made a difference for the LGBT community,” said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. “From her efforts to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment to standing up for our rights in employment practices, there is no one else in this race who will fight harder for the LGBT community. She’s ready to be our next president and I look forward to organizing the LGBT community on her behalf.”

The list of supporters on the steering committee demonstrates the history of friendship that Hillary Clinton has had with this community and the depth of her support among LGBT leaders. It includes people like former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Eldie Acheson, who went to college with Hillary Clinton, and Neel Lattimore who worked for her as First Lady as well as film/TV writer and producer Greg Berlanti who met her last week and signed on as a supporter immediately. The list also includes prominent LGBT activists who have been leaders on issues important to the community, including three retired members of the military who have worked to overturn the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, advocates in the fight against HIV/AIDS, and the attorney who argued and won the landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas.

“Her commitment to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and her steadfast work to improve access to care and treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS are just two of the reasons why I support Hillary Clinton for President,” said Jose Zuniga, President of the Chicago-based International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care. Zuniga, who attained the rank of Sergeant, was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army in 1993 after coming out as a gay man. He served as a military medic during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and had been named the Sixth US Army’s Soldier of the Year six weeks prior to his discharge.

Hillary Clinton has worked to advance the cause of equality for LGBT Americans for many years. As president, Clinton has pledged to end the divisive leadership of the past six years and work with the LGBT community to make sure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal economic benefits and rights. She also will work to end discrimination in adoption laws. As a U.S. Senator, she has worked to expand federal hate crimes legislation and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and will sign the legislation into law once she is in the White House. She will also put an end to the failed policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

“I am proud to have the support of such distinguished leaders in the LGBT community,” said Clinton. “Together, we can move our nation closer to the promise of fairness and equality that all Americans deserve.”

Already, Hillary for President has been actively reaching out to earn the support of the LGBT community. In March, Clinton addressed the Human Rights Campaign’s Board Meeting and Equality Convention — the only candidate to accept their invitation. Her LGBT supporters have hosted two fundraisers for her campaign, one in Washington, D.C., on May 23, 2007, and one in Los Angeles last Friday. Hillary for President has a full-time staff person, Mark Walsh, solely focused on LGBT outreach.

“Hillary Clinton has precisely the priorities our nation needs at this time — a strong defense with a balanced hand to guide it, a will to strengthen education and health care, a fair tax system and a balanced budget – and equal treatment of every American under the law,” said Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. “The LGBT community has seen many hard political years. It is time for a renaissance for our nation and for our community.”