10/31/2007

6 Comments

1. The gay agenda has always been a millstone around the Democratic Party’s neck. Rightly or wrongly, Obama sees this. He has enough problem with electability to parade his gay sympathies.

   Comment by Banjo (b5278d) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:22 am

2. You want to talk about “millstones”?

   Comment by David Ehrenstein (b743cb) — 10/31/2007 @ 8:51 am

3. Interesting how this will play with Andrew Sullivan. To date, he’s been more or less in Obama’s corner, calling Obama his “only source of hope” or words to that effect.

   Comment by DubiousD (d5d032) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:17 am

4. Did Patterico just say Obama goes both ways?

   Comment by Kevin (4890ef) — 10/31/2007 @ 10:49 am

5. David may be giving Obama too much credit even in this article. Obama is a Chicago Machine hack and his thinking on the subject stopped at “money or votes?” Put not your faith in princes, gay or black people.

   Comment by nk (7aed24) — 10/31/2007 @ 11:02 am

6. “Go read it?” Phooey. It’s Ehrenstein.

   1] [      ] claims to be gay-friendly, but has not supported a Constitutional amendment to require public gay sex as a qualification for office, and is therefore a Racist, Homophobic, Christianist Wingnut who cannot be even considered as a possibility for Upholding the Public Trust.

   2] George W. Bush is a RHCW who should be hauled before an International Court and executing for disturbing the rest of the peaceful, generous Saddam Hussein.

   Expand each of those paragraphs to 200 words or so and you have the gist of any Ehrenstein piece that doesn’t directly address the movie business. Reading them is redundant and pointless.

   Regards,
   Ric

   Comment by Ric Locke (0d9ad6) — 10/31/2007 @ 12:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.