Sign Up for Logo's
Monthly Newsletter
Hillary’s Hometown Gay Paper Endorses Obama

obama-waves-to-crowd-13008.jpg

GCN says: the choice is clear.

Gay City News has endorsed Barack Obama for president. In the issue that hits the streets today, carries a carefully considered and qualified endorsement of the senator from Illinois.

The endorsement of the largest-circulation and most influential LGBT weekly newspaper in New York could help Barack Obama in a city in which all the LGBT Democratic clubs have endorsed Hillary Clinton, as has the city’s other gay paper, the New York Blade.

“The nation needs to hear our views on how American politics can accommodate new voices in the mix,” GCN declares. “Judged by that measure and taking full stock of how the Democratic nomination contest has unfolded, we believe the choice is clear. Gay City News endorses Barack Obama.”

I should say by way of full disclosure that I have written op-ed pieces for both GCN and the Blade and that my name is on the masthead of GCN (in teeny tiny print) as a contributing writer. I have been a regular news source for both papers, and have provided news tips to both papers from time to time. But I myself am a bit surprised by the GCN endorsement of Obama, giving the paper’s strong criticism of him over the Donnie McClurkin affair, which the GCN editorial acknowledges as a source of concern.

“The McClurkin episode, unfortunate as it was, pales in comparison to the divisiveness that Senator Clinton has allowed her campaign to devolve into,” GCN argues. “Her comparison between the roles played by Dr. King and President Lyndon Johnson in advancing civil rights can be chalked up to inartfulness. The comments coming from her surrogates are far more disturbing, forming a pattern that sadly can no longer be ignored.”

The GCN editorial cites the way in which Clinton surrogates “injected ackwnoledged youthful cocaine use” into the debate.  “New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo inexplicably used the phrase ’shuck and jive’ in describing what a presidential candidate might try to pull with the media, and then had his operatives bombard the press with official umbrage that his words might be construed as targeting the African-American senator,” GCN adds.

“Nobody, however, has been more egregious than Bill Clinton. In his ardent championing of his wife, the former president has dissed Obama as ‘a kid’ and this past Saturday was quick to mention Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 South Carolina primary wins to contextualize Obama’s commanding victory,” GCN says, noting the Clinton strategy of attempting to marginalize Obama as the ‘black candidate.’  “That is unacceptable, and the LGBT community should lend its voice to a growing progressive chorus in turning its back on this kind of politics,” GCN declares.

You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
Comments
  1. oakley sunglasses...

    summer dresses

    summit racing

    sunday comics

    ...
  2. Kris says, "Obama's hands aren't exactly clean in all this. He he dished his share of dirt on Clinton--both before and after the alleged truce."

    Perhaps, but here's something that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama has ever done to Clinton: Paint her as a ghettoized, feminist-only candidate or equated her to, say, Gloria Steinem or some other feminist figure who is controversial among the mainstream. Billary's race-baiting of Obama, in contrast, has been despicable! And it's what finally convinced me to support Obama, which is who I'll be voting for in New York State next Tuesday.
  3. Barack is a better candidate because he can face McCain (or any republican for that matter) and win. He has proven he can unite Independents and even bring in Republicans and thats the key to winning elections. Despite being a great candidate Hillary is a polarizing figure. She will bring out Republicans with her rhetoric. Obama is able to stand up in a tough debate and we clearly saw that during the South Carolina debate were he eloquently and powerfully derailed the Clinton Machine. And I for one am tired of the same two families running our government. Do we live in a country of dynastic rule or democracy? I think this is an important question. Also it is important to look at corruption and accountability. Hillary voted for this war and Barack made the right judgment from the beginning and voted against it. The Clinton's have been swarming in special interest groups and have been aided by powerful figures while Barack's campaign is supported entirely by the average joe/jane donating small amounts of money. The fact is there is an enormous title wave, not only democrats and liberals but Americans in general, who are tired of the disingenuous and untruthful politics that is so prevalent in both parties and they want someone different.

    Also as a Gay American I believe it is important to choose the best civil rights candidate. Obama has shown his true side. On the Logo debate and many other debates. In a Baptist church in South Carolina he spoke out against homophobia in the African American commnity and the need to change that(something unimaginable before). He new this was not a popular message, he new it could hurt him but he did it anyway. That shows TRUE leadership. He also spoke in favor of gay marriage in a town hall meeting in New Hampshire saying that he was "ok with it" when his church voted for Gay marriage.

    This is a man possible of changing our country for the better and getting more people involved in a truthful political process and I am happy to be voting for him. As a minority, a Gay man, a liberal and a proud American I hope that you all well join me and vote for Obama.
  4. Obama's hands aren't exactly clean in all this. He he dished his share of dirt on Clinton--both before and after the alleged truce. In a close race, where the positions of the two candidates aren't all that different, there is inevitably going to be mudslinging. Obama has gotten a pass from the press, both on his conduct and on the lack of specifics in his proposals. Let's focus on the issues. Since when is pointing out inconsistencies in someone's record mean, let alone racist? We tried picking a president based on his perceived affability (something that was never apparent to me), and look where that got us. And we're not going to take the White House back by trying to take the high road and stay above the fray. That didn't work for Gore and Kerry, and it's not going to work for whomever the Democratic nominee is this time around. I for one am glad to see some scrappiness on the part of Democrats for a change; I'm tired of the Democrats being spineless wimps who let the Republicans walk all over us. Obama's charm has worn thin as far as I'm concerned; a smug arrogance has begun to surface that is anything but charming (witness his snub of Clinton at the State of the Union). And he is yet to be really vetted on the issues. If he can't stand up to friendly fire from fellow Democrats, he will never be able to withstand the barrage of ammo that the Republicans will launch at the Democratic nominee. The Clintons have been there/done that; there's nothing they can throw at Hillary that hasn't already been said, and the Clintons have had years to prepare for that. Obama, on the other hand, has never fought a hard race and has not yet been the vicim of the right wing attack machine. The Clintons know how to balance the budget, restore peace and prosperity, and fight for human rights and universal health care. They've done it before and are the wiser for their struggles. Raise Hill!
  5. He has a lot of experience Margaret, look at his recored and the time spent in the foreign relations committee. Flouting the inexperience card will not help Hillary any more. In order to change the system we need to vote for someone who has been working against it this system not feeding off of it. I am glad someone stood up and didn't go with the flow. And I believe they looked at all the issues including personality because that does make a difference. Their positions are similar. But one is systematic and cold while the other is hopeful and all inclusive.
  6. Pakistan. Global warming. Foreign energy dependence. Sinking dollar. Housing crisis. And GCN primarily bases it vote for a candidate on the basis of what kind of campaign he or she runs? What about the policies? Granted, it is a neat campaign trick for Obama to say we can turn our backs on politics as usual and "change," but we live in a system, and what level of experience does Obama have with that system?
  7. Encouraging, but I wonder if it's too little, too late, given Hillary Clinton's huge lead in several Feb. 5 states.
Leave a Comment

*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code
Anti-Spam Image

The Visible Vote ’08 Widget
Post our headlines on your blog


Customize/resize this widget

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed on the blog are the personal opinions of our bloggers, and in no way reflect the opinions of Logo, MTV Networks or Viacom.

Warning:
Some blogs or websites linked from this site may contain objectionable or uncensored content. Logo is not affiliated with these websites and makes no representations or warranties as to their content.