Is white a prerequisite to being clueless about the “real world”? It’s amazing to me how often white is inserted as code for stupid, clueless, and unconcerned with reality when, in reality, it means no such thing. One could of course say about Obama: “rich, black, celebity=no idea of the real world” and be equally accurate.

Etheridge wasn’t, BTW, born a rich celebrity. Although she was born white, a fact which clearly means she’s spent her entire life stupid, clueless, and unconcerned with reality. That is, her lifelong whiteness neatly fills the early gap in cluelessness otherwise left by her only later-acquired rich celebrityhood.

One does wonder what effect Etheridge’s lifelong womanhood and lesbianism would have on the cluelessness created first by her whiteness and later by her rich celebrityhood? One suspects none, since women, in any sexual iteration, are, by definition, clueless bitches. So Etheridge will always be a worthwhile target for “progressive” wrath should she demonstrate any “cluelessness” by daring to have an opinion not given to her by the male dominated “progressive” movement. Neat how that all works, isn’t it?

Now compare: does Obama’s maleness or straightness or lifelong middleclassness and later great wealth somehow make him clueless about “reality”? Oh, no – it doesn’t. His race somehow ensures that he’s always clued in to the real reality of the realness of the real world, even the real reality of the realness of the real world that poor, female, and gays/lesbians occupy. So Obama will always get the benefit of the doubt should his actual actions demonstrate any cluelessness about the real reality of the real world that the people he’s actually fucking over live in. Neat how that all works, isn’t it?

Oh yeah and then there was all the support for ’so-called intelligent design theory’ as a subterfuge for supporting religion in schools.

“Flipping the bird” is not defined as “pandering to, to the detriment of everybody who is not a far right christian”.

Also, “potential influence” is not the same as “political power”, the latter which is being given to Rick Warren in wheelbarow loads by Obama.

The chunk of his base that Bush flipped the bird to? How about far right christians who don’t give a damn about global warming because they’re all waiting for the rapture anyway and then the 2nd coming of christ who will miraculously restore the earth to pristine condition.

It was only in his final days as Pres. when it doesn’t matter anymore that he started to say anything about recognizing global warming.

Oh yeah and then there was all the support for ‘so-called intelligent design theory’ as a subterfuge for supporting religion in schools.

Obama, Warren and now the Etheridges will bear watching. But then I was watching Obama with distrust before the election was final.

The entire ‘marriage’ debate is political. If it weren’t for the 1200 rights I wouldn’t support marriage for gays because I see it as just buying into the heteronormative paradigm. That is not revolutionary but for the sake of the kids of gay couples its worth fighting for.

Tammy and Melissa=naive but then as Judy sorta said: rich, white, celebrity=no idea of the real world.

FYI, apologias for Obama look exactly like this:

and it’s simultaneously our task to keep in mind that of course a presidential administration is going to have to shake the KKK’s hand or whatever, it’s part of the job.

Really? Name the last president that met with the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

We shouldn’t be surprised when the president expediently flips the bird to a chunk of his base; that’s part of what presidents do,

Really? Name the chunk of his base that Bush flipped the bird to.

You have an odd way of being “not interested” in ranting at Etheridge and her spouse. Where’s your 5,000 word post taking Obama to task for inviting Warren to bless the anaguruation. Oh. That’s right. There isn’t one. But since pressure on politicians is useless — let’s yell at celebrities! Yay for the effectiveness of grassroots organizing, I guess.

If we’re to keep anybody as honest as possible, I suggest that the best and most useful efforts will always be directed at those who are in political power and those who are being handed political power — like Obama and Warren. But what we in fact get is apologia after apologia for the authors’ Obama-love despite Obama’s indefensible bigotry, or at the very least indefensible promotion of bigotry.

I’m not sure I agree with your first sentence, but that’s just because I don’t believe real political change will ever come from the top down. As for your second sentence, I don’t know if you are referring to me by “the authors’,” but I’ve never professed any love for Obama, in this post or others, and that has nothing to do with whether he’s invited homophobic, misogynist pastors to his parties or not. I’m also not interested in “ranting” at the Etheridges, for reasons that I think I made abundantly clear throughout this whole page.

I don’t. Because while I admire Melissa Etheridge greatly for coming out in the very many ways she has and continues to do, she’s not a politician nor is her spouse. Neither of them is setting policy for this country, neither of them has been invited to speak at the inauguration, neither of them serves in our government, neither of them is being identified as an advisor to the president-elect.

So, if the point of this is “keeping the left wing as honest as possible,” Etheridge and her spouse are immaterial and rants at and about them are useless. If we’re to keep anybody as honest as possible, I suggest that the best and most useful efforts will always be directed at those who are in political power and those who are being handed political power — like Obama and Warren. But what we in fact get is apologia after apologia for the authors’ Obama-love despite Obama’s indefensible bigotry, or at the very least indefensible promotion of bigotry.

Of course, if the idea is to publicly attack Etheridge and her spouse for not being as smart, ideologically pure, poltically savvy, and underprivileged as the denizens of this blog — well, at least you’re doing that right. Congratulations on completely missing the point of what the organized “left wing” should be for.

Obama gets every excuse in the book. Etheridge gets abuse and hate. That doesn’t strike me as keeping anybody “honest”, much less the purveyors of excuses and hate.

Absolutely. I also agree with your calling attacks on Etheridge for what they so often are: homophobia masquerading as alliance. I would add to that: misogyny.

Obama hasn’t come in for a tenth, a hundredth, of the vitriol flung at Etheridge. Etheridge is naive and privileged and stupid and deluded for talking to a vicious homophobe. Obama is a canny politician for giving a vicious homophobe and misogynist an international forum and the presidential seal of approval.

On the scale of who’s f’d me more, I have to go with Obama. Etheridge is a sideshow. A useful sideshow for Obama as she’s being used to detract from his own bigotry in giving Warren the honor of speaking at the inauguration.