Obama's 'Inclusiveness' Includes Homophobic Idiots

I hate to disagree with Mike, but I find the talk about Barak Obama's 'campaign of inclusiveness' to be laughable. If I was the youth outreach coordinator for the other campaigns I would be salivating over taking on an idiot who does truly idiotic things like praise a far-right extremist like Tom Coburn (via Talk Left):

"The opportunities are there to create a more effective relationship between parties." Members of the other party he would seek help from include Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Warner of Virginia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

It's this last guy who should raise some eyebrows. "I would also seek out people like Tom Coburn, who is probably the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate. He has become a friend of mine."

For a little refresher on who Obama's friend is, and what he believes in, we get a greatest hits, or sorts, from Democratic Underground :

Senator Coburn, who said that lesbianism is "so rampant in some of the schools...that they'll let only one girl go to the bathroom."

Senator Coburn, who claims he can tell if someone is telling the truth because of his medical training.

Dr. Coburn, who said: "You know, I immediately thought about silicone breast implants and the legal wrangling and the class-action suits off that. And I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows...In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier."

Senator Coburn, who thought Schindler's List was smut, an "all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity.

On gay rights, Senator Coburn said: "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

Senator Coburn, who objects to legal abortion in cases of rape, and justifies his position by noting that his great-grandmother was raped by a sheriff.

Now, I'm not in charge of any of the youth campaigns for any of the candidates, but I can tell you that if any of them start going after Obama within the younger demographic they will have plenty of ammunition to use. In 2006 I did youth outreach in Philly, and by far the things that made young folks listen to me when I would tell them about Rick Santorum were quotes of Rick's concerning gays, women, and abortion. If I was running those campaigns I would tell every kid that I could: "Do you know that Senetor Obama plans to work with a guy who thinks that gay people are on a mission to take over the government, who wants to tell you who to have sex with, who thinks that lesbianism is rampant in our schools, who wants to illegalize all abortion, etc?"

Obama's "inclusiveness" is just a bunch of hollow words, and pretty e-mails. In reality the guy wants to work with the very people who want to exclude "undesirables" from U.S. society. And I hope that the other campaigns can help to dispel the mystique around this "New Democrat" and reveal the "good" Senator as the hack that he is.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Coburn and Barack

Four points.

1. It's very troublesome that Barack would provide cover for someone like Coburn, and his supporters should hold his feet to the fire over this.
2. I'm making a point about his youth outreach strategy, and I don't think you can argue that the inclusiveness I spoke about is there in the strategy and in how they are organizing.
3. Do you honestly think Barack would roll back GLBT rights?
4. Do you believe Obama would not advance GLBT rights as President?

Responses...

1- Most of his supporters refuse to criticize him on anything. He is, to a large degree, running on his personality and story, both fairly empty/maleable concepts, so why would his supporters care?

2- I don't think his campaign is really more "inclusive" accept insofar as their targeting goes, so I would say that their campaign is more widely "targeted". And while I do think that's a bit of a semantic distinction, I believe that using that term while discussing a guy whose campaign is anything but "open", and which shows something akin to contempt to the Net and Grassroots, is misleading and helps to perpetuate the myth that he's anything new or different from other pro-corporate DLC Dems.

3- The real question is: would he fight to push them forward? I think the answer is clearly: no! He wants to "move past partisanship", remember? That means, as far as I can tell, negotiating from the start on items that most Dems care deeply about.

4- No, but I don't believe he'd fight for them, or anything really that progressives stand for.

#2

Fair enough on 3 and 4.

Wrt #2, "targeting" is a good qualifier that does indeed clarify the argument. When comparing his strategy and Hillary's, that is more than a semantic difference.

Whether or not the campaign is open/transparent, or holds the Netroots in contempt, etc. is a different argument, and one we've had on this site many times before.

History lesson

I'm still decidedly undecided as far as the presidential goes, but this seems like a really weak argument.

Paul Wellstone, a great progressive, and my former senator counted amongst his friends some of the most conservative members of congress, like Jesse Helms. That certainly didn't make him a DLC centrist, or cause him to abandon his principles. He was able to use some of those connections to push forward some really important bipartisan legislation.

The idea that you shouldn't work with people you disagree with is how bush has been trying to lead this country. How's that working out?

That's a lesson?

So, why don't you enlighten me to the various ways in which Obama is like Paul Wellstone? I'm sure that you're right. I mean, Paul Wellstone was the chair of a caucus that would give a gift of tens-of-billions of dollars to the worlds worst polluters. Wellstone helped pass extraordinarily anti-consumer laws, that stripped the states of their right to pass their own consumer laws, didn't he? And I'm sure, when confronted with a judge so conservative he makes the Heritage crowd have an instant orgasm, Wellstone said something like the following:

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake. There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers.

Obama is not a DLC drone because of this one episode, but rather because of his persistent pattern of behavior.

Go ahead and support him if you like, but I'd take off those rosy colored glasses if I were you. Obama seems to have fooled a lot of people into believing that he represents something "new" or "different", but Clinton has a better progressive score than he does. Would you consider her a DLC type?

And one last thing: this is a blog. We don't have to make the entire argument every time we post. If you want to see more on what I have written about Senetor Coal-to-Liquid, click on his name on the right sidebar.

Just saw this

It would be nice if this site had comment notification like the MFA site had back in the day, so we could keep the conversation going.

In any case, you might want to go back and re-read my comment. I'm not an Obama supporter, (I've still yet to be inspired by any of the candidates), nor was I trying to say that Obama is like Paul Wellstone. To the contrary, most people who have been working in Minnesota politics over the last couple years have seen countless candidates invokes his name in trying to win the support of Minnesota's Democrats. Like many people, I'm sick of it and would not engage in it.

Which brings us back to what I was actually saying. Paul Wellstone was a good man, who did a lot of good work, some of it with people who were on the complete opposite side of the ideological spectrum. The fact that he was able to work with people whom he shared almost nothing in common with politically, shouldn't cheapen the work he did.

Likewise, no candidate should be faulted simply for a willingness to work with conservatives on issues which we might be able to find legitimate common ground. If you want to call out Obama on any of the other issue you have with him, fine. But, saying that acknowledging a willingness to work with conservatives is tantamount to betrayal is unhelpful.

I for one don't want a Democratic majority that rules as unilaterally and with the same partisan fervor as the Republicans did.