Justhuman

I'd like to start with a couple of disclaimers:

*I don't trust any of them. The unfortunate reality is I end up
voting for the ones that offend me the least.
*I know that they all play to the crowd to one extent or another. If
they don't do it in the election campaign, they do it when they're
voting on bills or signing vetoes.

That all being said, I'm a little disturbed by this latest
article on Obama. He's been campaigning hard in South Carolina,
trying to pull in the vote of religious black voters, including a
concert series. One of the headliners in the concert is an anti-gay
minister.

The Obama campaign were kind of surprised when GBLT blog started
throwing up the red flags. As of now, Obama has said he disagrees
with the reverend's stance and says stands against the anti-gay
sentiments held by various religious groups. ...But the reverend is
still on the concert stage.

How much of the damage control is not wanting to make it into a bigger
issue by firing the guy? How much of it is hoping that the religious
black voters (who probably don't follow GBLT blogs) won't notice if he
doesn't fire the guy? How much is it spineless fear of reverse
backlash if he does?

So it leaves in my mind the question of how much will he cave on
controversial issues to appease the religious voters...

See, because I think that if the Clinton had made some kind of similar
mistake, which I ultimately think was failing to check out the
performers, that there'd be all sorts of back peddling and eye-rolling
statements about oversights by an unpaid volunteer, yadda, yadda...but
I think she'd have fired the guy.

But that's just a thought, probably not worth the 2 cents I just put into it.