Are they 'just words'?

It's generational, and more

When I hear any politician include "gay and straight" or straight and gay" in a list of groups like "old and young," rich and poor" I feel like it's a big step forward in normalizing our experience.  Yes, it may seem to be only rhetoric, but it bespeaks a very public acknowledgment that we are part of the whole country and should not, will not be left out of the mix.

Showing up at gay Pride to me doesn't really mean much.  I grew up in New York where mayors and pols went to the Pulaski Day parade and Columbus Day Parade and all sorts of ethnic events.  Did it mean the politician actually advocated for that group or cared about it?  Not necessarily. Yes you could say the same thing about speeches, except that each time "gay and straight" is heard, but it's another chip in the wall of prejudice, whereas photo ops don't mean as much.

In any event, both candidates are sorely behind the times on the issue of gay marriage, however, so there's still work to be done.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:40:11 AM CDT

Generational for certain

Obama's not much older than I am, and when I was in college, we had some fairly active queer groups (I created and organized one of them for three years, despite harassment and death threats).

Obama, as an activist, probably knew a lot more openly gay and lesbian youth than Clinton did when she was a young adult, and Obama probably is more tied into an activist community which isn't as directly tied into homophobia than the civil rights movement in the 1960's was.

Admittedly, it's very complicated; there were out gay men and lesbians involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960's, but many of them had to be presented as virtually celibate in order to participate.  Civil rights today have changed dramatically, and having Obama's campaign be so youth focused means a lot of the people directly involved in it are much more out than people in Clinton's campaign, and with a campaign that is not nearly as top-down as Clinton's they have more influence.  

What it boils down to for me is that Obama is more interested in presenting us as human beings than worried about how this might negatively affect his campaign.  I consider this to be a very good thing, despite how pissed off I was at him over the McClurkin thing (I haven't entirely forgiven him for that, but I've let it go).

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:33:47 AM CDT

I agree

When I speak on campuses and meet people less than half my age (a key target group for Obama), gayness is part of their lives and isn't the bugboo it was for Clinton's generation.  She didn't grow up with Gay Pride Days, and I think she isn't comfortable even saying the word "gay."  Here's my proof, a quote that Pam ran from her interview in PGN:

PGN: I assume that you and President Clinton have gay friends. Can you give me your impression of one of those couples that you socialize with, without giving any names?
Hillary Clinton: Oh my gosh. There are so many of them. I know that Mark [Walsh, Clinton's national director of LGBT outreach] is on the phone. Let me say this, we don't get to socialize a lot. But when we do, it's usually at a big event where we get to see people and spend time with them. This is something I want to do more of as soon as I finish this presidential campaign. It's sort of hard to pick out people. We go to some events in Washington and New York. I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life.

She does not once say the word "gay."  She says "friends" and "it's part of my life" and "It's sort of hard to pick out people" and does some weird fancy dancing about her socializing. She won't even anonymously describe one single couple she knows.  Not one.  This is reticence plus.  

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:54:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think she's all that LGBT friendly.

Hillary is a conservative Christian. She doesn't support marriage equality, and I wouldn't assume that she supports gay rights except in the most casual and non-commital way.

She's not really a Democrat - she's a Dixiecrat and always has been. That's why she was so popular in Arkansas. People really need to pay attention to this. There's a marked tendency to attribute liberal views to her that she has never demonstrated.

Yes, there's a generational effect, but there's a very real value gap, too. Obama is the only one still running who is comfortable with LGBT issues.  

---

by: MorgaineSwann @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 22:45:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so sure about generational

At least not completely.  There are a whole lot of factors that are involved.

My 84 yr old mother (whom we lost in October) was faster to accept the fact that my brother was gay than I was.  I was seriously involved in the Charismatic/Full Gospel movement at the time and Mom was more of a freethinker.

She was very accepting of my brother's friends and considered his partner another son.  She told him that she would be proud to be the mother of the grooms one day.

I think that everyone has a level of comfort with otherness - perhaps she isn't not comfortable with the concept of gay but is accepting of gay people as individual people.  Maybe she does not see "gay" in her gay friends and acquaintances.

Or I may be talking through my hat.  :-)

---

by: Zorya @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 17:47:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but your mother had a son who is

gay. if your creating an mathematical equation for acceptance,  that would be the one of the variables.

As far as I know, Clinton has no gay children.....and is from an older generation, thus two strikes against her.  

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 19:23:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily

How many families have rejected a gay child?  Quite a few.  When my brother came out in the early 1980's he was risking rejection and alienation from our entire family.  

Mom not only came from an earlier generation than Sen Clinton, she was raised in the South - Mississippi, specifically.  Variation from the norm was not well received at that time.

My point was that while generational issues will have an impact, rejection or acceptance is based on many factors.  

No matter when or where one grows up, one's willingness to challenge conventional wisdom and culturally accepted mindsets will be a major factor.

---

by: Zorya @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 19:42:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm saying

its a variable.....does that mean its always included, no.

But families with gay children have always more accepting than those without as a general rule.

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 19:50:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right on, Pam.

One time I challenged my friends to the following: Find me any mention of LGBT rights on Hillary Clinton's website accessible by following links on her front page (besides those added by third parties in the forum), and I'll give you $20. Needless to say, I didn't pay out a cent!

Pam, the LGBT rights section on Clinton's web site is here:

http://hillaryclinton.com/feat...

However, it was circulated among those on a list, quietly... away from the eyes of mainstream America. It's like we aren't good enough to come in through the front door. Instead, we only have a place at the table by silently coming in the back door. Obama puts us front and center. That says something.

I posted about this a long time ago - and I'm glad you're continuing to talk about it.

http://gracethespot.com/?p=21

--------------------------------


http://www.gracethespot.com

---

by: Grace @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM CDT

This is a HUGE problem

Pam,

Thanks for posting this.  

Anyone in Washington will tell you that a candidate who dares only to speak your name when they're talking to your face, seeking your endorsements, money and votes, is not going to support your issues when political pressure is placed on them from our opponents.

Who are the opponents of LGBT equality?  The very voters Hillary now courts, and will ultimately be beholden to, if elected.  

White working class Catholics gave Hillary her victory in PA and she's now focused on court working class whites in IN and NC.  Remember the "bubba vote"  

This is not spin.  As you point out in your post, this is reality.  Politics is no place for a Pollyanna ... or in our community, an "Appletini."  

Our community was devastated when President Bill Clinton read the polls and caved into the political pressure to sign  both Don't Ask Don't Tell and the hateful Defense of Marriage Act.  Hillary Clinton is a poll watcher as well, giving us clear indication that she'd sign even worse legislation should the her new anti-gay base demand payback for delivering her victory.  That's reality.

It's chilling, but please think about it ... she's courting them, showing them she's one of them, and we're not being mentioned at all.

---

by: PhilAttey @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM CDT

Hillary's near inability to say the word "gay"

is a significant issue.  I am only four and a half years younger than Hillary and I have known many gay and lesbian people before I came out later in life - even in this conservative corner of Virginia.  Therefore, I do not buy the generational argument.  Particularly in the case of someone like Hillary who has been involved in the Democrat Party for decades and living in DC for many years.

In addition, I have been commenting for months now on the fact that gays are utterly invisible throughout Hillary's campaign site.  I have checked regularly and we simply do not exist.  In contrast we are readily visible on Obama's site.  If Hillary cannot utter the words "gay" or "lesbian," they should at least show up on her web site.  But they do not.  That says something.

I for one was very upset about the McClurkin disaster.  However, since then Obama has convinced me that he genuinely supports justice for the LGBT community. When Obama appeared in Virginia Beach - home of Pat Robertson and his Kool-Aid drinkers - he specifically mentioned gays and condemned anti-gay discrimination.  This statement was made to 18,000 people, a good number of whom were from black churches (which are VERY homophobic in this area).  That took some guts.

My view is that if Hillary will not mention us now (other than when soliciting money), do not expect much support were she to be elected in November.

---

by: Michael-in-Norfolk @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM CDT

You may be right

Her not saying the word "gay" may be something more personal than generational.  The point is, she's not saying it and Obama is, in speeches around the country, to large audiences.  If Hillary's "silence" is, an attempt not to alienate people, then it's even worse. I had the feeling in her PGN answer above that she was contorting herself not to say the word, not to reveal too much.  Honestly, how much harm could she have done herself and her campaign by saying, "Oh yes we know some lovely lawyers in Arlington."  

And yes, I understand someobody could argue that saying the word "gay" doesn't mean much in terms of policy.  But surely not saying it means a lot, as does hiding LGBt concerns on your campaign web site?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think the web site answers the question

We can speculate what Clinton's personal reticence is about referencing LGBT in speeches, but a whole host of people work on the design and messaging on the web site, including Sen. Clinton.

A buried link is just as bad as no presence at all; it is an indication that the campaign purposefully decided that LGBTs must come in the back door for some table scraps.

Seriously, how do the all the Clinton gay declared or leaning superdelegates explain this away? Even better, what about all the deep-pocket gay donors to her campaign? They certainly should have had the gravitas to insist LGBT existence on that cite for all the times she's hit up our community for buxxx.

To partially answer one of the above questions, the Clinton-leaning superdelegates are in a horrid position, particularly those who fantasized that this race would be over by Super Tuesday. They care about access and power, and dread (with reason) having to cross the Clintons.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Agree Pam

Frankly, I'm getting tired of being treated like "a bastard step-child at a family reunion" by politicians.  They want us around when it's convenient for them and Heaven forbid they should do anything to upset "main stream" America like mentioning GLBT's openly and prominently on a website or in a speech!

I support Obama wholeheartedly, but would vote for Clinton if she's the eventual nominee, although with reluctance.

Either way, I think both have a LOT of fence mending to do after the primary dust settles!

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oops!

I meant to put LGBT.  I guess I'm a little dyslexic today!

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...I guess I missed the memo.

Why are we going with LGBT now?  It 'reads' much better with GLBT and it is easier to type.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:40:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It used to always be GLBT

but if you've taken any LGBT classes.....or been involved in any groups, well it was changed to LGBT. Many of my lesbian friends say its because "all men are pigs" and why should we put pigs first.

oh well,

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 19:47:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Random order generator?

TLBG
GTBL
LTGB
BGTL
....

---

by: NancyP @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 19:55:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

lgbt

clinton doesn't have a section for it because she is right of center.  i am glad obama features an LGBT section, my only concern is most people don't know what LGBT is, and the site doesn't seek to expand on the acronym which is a pseudo easy way out.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33:31 AM CDT

A way out, or a nod to us

Isn't it just as likely, or more so, that the site is respecting how people talk about communnity-wide issues?  rather than Gay Issue or even Gay and Lesbian Issues, it uses LGBT.  That feels more insider and more respectful to me.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:41:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

See my response above

Hillary Clinton does have a section, but it's buried and only available to those on a closed list. Sad.

--------------------------------


http://www.gracethespot.com

---

by: Grace @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:51:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

interesting point.

and one i would have answered as lev did above until a few months ago.  at our caucus, besides naming our preferred candidate, we were asked to check boxes if we were handicapped or lgbt.  i was shocked to hear many of my neighbors wonder to each other "what is lgbt?".  people simply don't know.  giving obama the benefit of the doubt, i'll assume that he uses the acronym on the website because he also doesn't understand that "lgbt" is a mysterious acronym to many.  but if he did want to hide in plain sight on his web page, using the acronym (and tucking lgbt concerns in the "people" section and no under "civil rights" where they belong) would be the way to go.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:18:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yikes

So being sensitive to people wanting the term lgbt to be used to describe them is now a lgbt to hide their concerns?  Wow, that's devious.  So Clinton and Obama are both out to pull a fast one?  Me, I see it as respectful of the community to use lgbt, and if people don't know what it means, they can (and should) be educated.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 16:29:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i guess you missed the

"giving obama the benefit of the doubt" part of my post followed by nothing more than "ifs".  you have read way too much into what i said.  i was speaking in the hypothetical.  

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 16:45:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

meant to post this here, sorry

Didn't miss it and didn't miss this:

but if he did want to hide in plain sight on his web page, using the acronym (and tucking lgbt concerns in the "people" section and no under "civil rights" where they belong) would be the way to go.

That's what I was responding to.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 21:21:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look folks,

no matter how many times Obama says "gay" in public (does he ever say "lesbian"? humm) he still doesn't support my equal rights anymore than Clinton does.  In fact, when I hear Obama say "gay"  in public, it sounds like he could be referring to lepers for all I know.  

Yes, it's important to hear our stories and be named in a public arena, but at this point Obama saying gay in public doesn't make him anymore pro gay than he already isn't.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:51:32 AM CDT

I think there's a big difference...

between having a policy buried on your web site and being willing to name it in a public setting.

But maybe that's just me.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:17:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting Reponse in the Advocate Article

One thing in Obama's recent Advocate interview that really impressed me on this topic was his insistence he did not want LGBT activists to stop fighting for equal marriage rights even as he's advocating the civil union/domestic partner compromise. His reticence on the issue appeared much more a problem of what is possible in the current political landscape vs. any personal animosity, which is a new spin for him and, I hope, a good one.  

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He supports federal equality

to marriage for CUs.  That is the farthest I've heard any viable politician go for marriage equality.  He does surpass HRC, and certainly surpasses any Republican.

---

by: onthesea @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:43:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excuse me

But when you list opposites like

old and young

rich and poor

then the rhetorical opposite of straight is gay, not "gay and lesbian." None of the other common opposites is composed of two words linked together

That doesn't mean lepers, and doesn't mean lesbians are not included.

We are talking the rhetoric of opposites, and I would never expect a good speaker to say "straight and gay and lesbian," because then it sounds as if we're no longer talking about opposite categories but three different categories.  

As for Obama saying "gay and straight" not meaning anything?  In a country as rank with homophobia as this one is, it means a great deal.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 13:56:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When the General Election Campaignes begin,

  It seems to me Obama will be the better candidate when LGBT issues are raised.  He is not affraid to mention gay.  You know the religious right are going to push McSame to the limit when it comes to Marriage Equality.  

 IMHO I think the Democratic Party did itself a disservice by not fully debating LGBT issues from the start.  Only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel made equality statements, and when they dropped out the rest went silent on the LGBT issues.  The longer this primary goes on and our issues are not discussed in a positive light, the more the republicans gain when they drag out the gay boggyman.  And with an amendment on the ballot it Flor-DUH, you know it is coming.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:21:12 AM CDT

California

Just wait and see what will happen if the CA Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality.

The Republicans, with McPain in the lead, and every Christofascist imaginable will be fighting each other to be on the airwaves denouncing "activist judges" and touting the Federal Discrimination (Marriage) Amendment.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 13:44:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clintons and the Gays

It should be noted that Obama has added the words "gay" and "lesbian" to his speeches in several instances where they often have not appeared in the prepared remarks released by his speechwriters. Sometimes the words are in the prepared text, other times not. But then he just adds them in on the fly when he sees fit. He is comfortable enough with us to do that.

On the other hand, look at the Clintons. This post reminded me of one I read some time back where one of Andrew Sullivans' readers informed him that Bill Clinton, with all the gay influnce in his administration, had intentionally scrubbed all references to any gay people in his memoirs. That's telling.

---

by: RandyH @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:39:05 AM CDT

Using Google to sleuth

Hey, kids!  Try this google search on the candidates!

search-word site:candidate.site

Here are my results:

Results 1 - 17 of 17 from hillaryclinton.com for transgender. (0.13 seconds)

Results 1 - 68 of 68 from hillaryclinton.com for LGBT. (0.27 seconds)

Your search - transgender site:www.barackobama.com - did not match any documents.

Results 1 - 16 of 16 from www.barackobama.com for LGBT. (0.16 seconds)

Hmn, Obama ('till now my pick for trans issues,) lets us in the front door, but all we find is a half-eaten Twinkie®™.

Clinton tries to limit our access to the tradesman's entrance, but there seem to be lots of coldcuts, cheese and veggie-dip trays lying around.

I'm going to have to take yet another hard look at the two democrats.  But, my state has already had its primary (which I couldn't vote in because my voter registration was in my old name,) so I have to wait until the bitter end and then vote for whomever ends up with the Democratic Party nomination, even if the candidate looks to be less good on L, G, B, and especially T issues than the 'loser'.

Hazumu Osaragi

---

by: Hazumu @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM CDT

Hey Kids, for what it's worth!

Try this at home!

13,000 for www.hillaryclinton.com + glbt. (0.26 seconds)

23,400 for www.barackobama.com + glbt. (0.10 seconds)

305 for www.barackobama.com + transgender. (0.06 seconds)

933 for www.hillaryclinton.com + transgender. (0.09 seconds)

 

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:04:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're missing the bigger issue

Hazumu -

You're missing the bigger issue here. The problem is that the Hillary Campaign is now in bed with, beholden to and continuing to court, a completely anti-gay voting block.  They're the ones who gave her the victory in PA, and who are now funding her campaign.

At the same time, she's completely silent and burying all information about any connection to us.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence to spell out for you the obvious.

Note:  If this rude awakening has sent chills down your spine now, please realize that her campaign would only go further to the right, as all campaigns do, during the general election.

That's reality .. and I'm as sorry about it as you are.

---

by: PhilAttey @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 16:28:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Courtin Scaife

one of the creepiest moments of the campaign was seeing her meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife, the ultra rightwing zillionaire.  In its own way, it's as loathsome as McCain seeking Hagee's endorsement after he rightly denounced rightwing preachers as "agents of intolerance."

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 16:32:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's Web Site

When we first talked about this months ago, any statement about gay people was as buried on Obama's Web site as it apparently still is on Hillary's. And what you could find had no quotes from Obama, but just testimony from others. Now, an actual Obama quote can be found under the main menu item, "People." That's warm and fuzzy and all, but that is not where I go looking first on any politician's Web site for views on LGBT issues. Indeed, it would never occur to me that "People" would be a major menu item.

The natural place to look for us is under "Issues," and you still cannot find anything about us on Obama's Web site under that heading. Under "Issues," he has a sub-heading called "Civil Rights." Nothing about us there. There is one called "Families." Nothing about us there, either. Since there is no "LGBT Rights" sub-heading, where else would you look?

This has disturbed me from the beginning. Intended or not, this makes me feel like gay folks might be pleasant social accessories ("People"), but we don't really have any serious issues. This is part of a long-standing pattern among liberals of the trivialization of gay issues. Black homophobic preachers use this all of the time as a tool. ("Gay people are affluent and white, and whatever they might have to deal with is nothing compared to what we have to deal with every day.") And I find that many gay people themselves have internalized this trivialization, which dovetails easily with internalized homophobia.

And by the way, it was very easy to find statements about gay rights on Kucinich's and Gravel's Web sites.

---

by: Jim @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:05:20 PM CDT

shades of gray

yeah, i see the differences between clinton and obama as shades of gray.  clinton marches in pride parades, obama mentions homophobia in speeches.  clinton hides us on her website, while obama sequesters us in the warm fuzzies zone on his.  really, what is the difference?  i don't see much.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:24:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Neither do I...

...on this or on any other issue.

---

by: Jim @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:57:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh, Iraq?

And they also have very different ideas of what the presidency should be:

http://www.newyorker.com/repor...


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 16:36:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Differences

Lev, I just read that entire seven-page article. It was quite interesting. And yes, Clinton and Obama are different people with different emotional histories.

But I do not see evidence from either one of them of wanting to treat the fundamental problems in the country. I do not think either one of them even recognizes that the fundamental problems in the country are problems.

From the first page of the article:

But perhaps the most important difference between these two politicians—whose policy views, after all, are almost indistinguishable—lies in their rival conceptions of the Presidency. Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government."

I do not think that the problem with this country is "vicious partisanship." The problem is that power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of very wealthy people for whom no amount of wealth or power is ever enough. To a large degree, these people preclude any possibility of change by determining the character of what we talk about, what we know, and what we value.

The only politician I can support is one who recognizes that fundamental fact and will try to change it.

Obama's running away from Jeremiah Wright is running away from whatever there might have been that was admirable in him. It even makes me suspect that he joined a big, black church in South Chicago with an eye to local political advantage. If he really believed in something, he would be able to embrace Jeremiah Wright in the face of the Fox/CNN/Republican smear machine and make his case to the American people. We might be surprised how many Americans might be pleasantly shocked and excited by someone fearlessly discussing core issues, instead of cowering at a Neo-Nazi framing of them.

As far as Iraq is concerned, I cannot see much difference between them, despite Obama's constant assertions. Obama has not voted against funding of the war, which has been his opportunity to walk the walk.

If forced to vote between them, I would vote for Obama, only because what we don't know about him—at least as a fantasy—could be good. I did not and will not vote for either of them.

---

by: Jim @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 19:21:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you'll vote for McCain--

--and a hundred more years in Iraq?

how is that an answer to any of the fundamental problems in the country, many of which, all of which, have been exacerbated by an economy in ruins thanks to the war?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 21:19:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

PS

I know plenty about each candidate, enough to know Clinton is too old-school pol for my taste and too muchy of a Scoop Jackson-type hawk.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I know what Obama has done and how he's build coalitions and I haven't heard Clinton talk about the assault on civil liberties of the last eight years.

Is he perfect?  No.  Does he answer all the questions the way I'd like him to?  No. I also don't think he ran from Wright.  I listened to his speech on race and I read it, too, and that was not the speech of a coward.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 21:26:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

race hurts Obama

If he really believed in something, he would be able to embrace Jeremiah Wright in the face of the Fox/CNN/Republican smear machine and make his case to the American people. We might be surprised how many Americans might be pleasantly shocked and excited by someone fearlessly discussing core issues

I disagree.  I think the more that race is an issue, the more Obama gets hurt.  Most white Americans don't think about race, they don't want to think about race, and they will resent someone making them think about race.

If you want allies, you have to be an ally.

---

by: dale @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 23:16:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

me three

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 15:36:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have never seen

a candidate for ANY office offer so much to the gay community and get so little love in return as Obama has.  It continues to blow my mind that so many gay folks are so so suspect if him, so critical, so full of conspiracy theories.

Yes, I too want my rights and I want them right now. Unfortunately, getting 100% of what we want is not realistic at this time.  We have to work with what we have and get the most we can.  In terms of what we as a community want, I see Obama offering us 70%, Hillary 50% and McCain 10%.  I think too many of us are ready to "cut off our nose to spite our face" - that is, be so upset about not getting 100% of what we want that we let our best (though not perfect) advocate slip away.  And I will never understand how staying pissed off and not voting for either Democrat is an answer to our prayers.

The numbers I used are arbitrary and debate-worthy at the very least.  Just trying to make a point.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 00:19:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Didn't miss it

Nor did I miss this:

but if he did want to hide in plain sight on his web page, using the acronym (and tucking lgbt concerns in the "people" section and no under "civil rights" where they belong) would be the way to go.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 17:22:43 PM CDT

Bill Richardson endorsed Obama,

  Bill Richardson is also going to be part of the Equality Forum in Philadelphia April 28th to May 4th.

 Hopefully this will be a positive for LGBT people.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 18:12:31 PM CDT

I am concerned about HRC's membership in a secretive religious

group called "The Fellowship", subject of articles and a new book by Jeff Sharlet, a long-time student of the religious right. Basically, the entry-level "members" participate in sex-segregated Bible studies. The Bible study membership of this group is comprised largely of very conservative politicians and their wives. The Fellowship also ran an apartment building providing free housing to male Congressmen and Senators during session - all selected were highly conservative. The head of the organization is one Doug Coe. Recorded sermons show him praising Hitler, Mao, and Stalin for their leadership abilities and single-minded devotion to a goal. The most public of the Fellowship leadership's activities is the National Day of Prayer, which is managed by an organization under a separate name.

http://www.harpers.org/archive... (general description of group - no mention of HRC)
http://www.mojones.com/news/fe...
HRC's involvement in group

Does HRC really have conservative religious beliefs that would affect her policy? Was she just schmoozing? Has she discussed anything indiscreet in the "confidential" setting of Bible study, and could a threat of exposure be used to keep her in line?

I don't see anything wrong with Bible study, and with association with conservatives forming part of a congregational circle, where one can get widely varying opinions. I find it somewhat off-putting that she joined a sex-segregated one - segregation being a practice most common in churches that deny women any role in preaching and teaching over male teens and adults.

---

by: NancyP @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 18:31:25 PM CDT

Room to Grow for O

One of the reasons I so strongly support my home Senator Obama is that I sincerely believe from watching & hearing him these last few years that he will grow more progressive on our issues, and fairly quickly.

I have similar convictions that Senator Clinton has grown about as much in this area as she ever will.

Whether the reasons are cold political calculation, generational unease, a religious cabal's influence, or whatever, it's just a deep seated sense I get when I watch these two.  

And my feelings are underscored as Limbaugh and Fox root for Clinton.  

---

by: ellipse @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 20:19:39 PM CDT