The proposed 2008 Dem platform updates and convention news

So it WAS Obama

Who decided to eliminate the GLBT phrases from the platform.  If you watch the Dean video he repeatedly states that the platform is dictated by the nominee of the party.

So, after Donnie McClurkin, Evangelical outreach and the like, we find the Obama Camp is the party responsible for the change in wording that eliminates our presence and visibility within the party.  I'm starting to regret not voting for Hillary.

Looks like another hold my nose and vote situation, as it always is with our issues in regards to the campaigns...

What a shame...

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:01:49 AM CDT

not necessarily

that's what Dean said in the deposition; I'd be interested to know if this was actually the case in the 2008 platform. Tammy Baldwin is a member of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee and Alabama State Rep. Patricia Todd is as well. As they will be part of the briefing, I would withhold judgment on things.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:10:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll withold judgement then.

But do you think that Dean would open himself up to perjury if it wasn't the way the Party operates?  He did clearly state that the Nominee is the one who has say over the platform, and if that is the case, it would only follow that either Obama or one of his surrogates has decided to change the wording.

And it isn't just LGBT issues on which the wording has shifted center.  Women's reproductive rights has changed as well as off shore drilling and some other concerns.  It does seem that in this electoral cycle that the party has once again shifted center (at some point center will be right based as we have moved center each and every election since the Clenis).

I'm no extremist but it does seem to me that the party has consitantly moved right and what used to be considered mainstream Democratic Principle has over the last 24 years become the far left.  I doubt that I am the only one to feel this way, or the only one to notice this shift.

Also, how long are we to withold judgement?  I can legitimately wait until the final platform is presented, but what if nothing changes?  Then who do we say is responsible?  The "Party" or the "nominee"?


The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I voted for Kucinich; I have no regrets whatsoever

Other than him not getting the nomination, that is.

Some day, we will have a candidate we can feel GOOD about voting for. Sure, and some day, the US will attain enlightenment, discrimination will be a thing of the past, universal healthcare will be a realitity, hunger will be eliminated and every child will receive a solid education.

You will excuse me for not holding my breath.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:01:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am beginning to wonder

if maybe, just maybe, a McCain presidency would be better for liberals than this compromise further to the right routine that we do every election.

At least a McCain presidency would put the icing on the conservative disaster of a presidency that we suffered through for the last eight years and make liberalism more broadly desireable.

Barack Obama does NOT stand for what I believe in. I am no longer convinced that he would nominate more liberal judges than McCain, so don't use "Supreme Court Vacancies" as a threat.

I am increasingly less likely to vote for him.
Senator Clinton is getting more likely to get a write in vote for me, or perhaps Rep. Kucinich...

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 13:43:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Supreme Court

How can you seriously say you don't believe that Obama's Supreme Court picks would be better than McSame's?  

How can you possibly believe that someone who gave up a lucrative career with Wall Street to become a community organizer is no closer to your values than the man who called his second, younger, mega-rich wife a c***?  Are you basing this opinion on the wording of the platform?  

How can you believe that there is no significant differntce between McCain who has spoken out in favor of the California amendment drive and Obama who has spoken out against it?

How can you possible think that a man of mixed race who was raised by his single white mother would have the same priorities and perspecitves as the son of navy admirals who married into the money that would continue to finance his political carrer?  

How can you believe that a man who can't access his own email is as prepared to run the country as a man who fully understands and uses modern electronic communications technology?

Are you basing this opinion on the wording of the platform?

I beg you to please take a step back and look at what is facing this country.  Obama doesn't have a huge lead and won't ever have a huge lead because of the large numbers of voters who still hold on to their racism.  Sen. Obama needs every single vote.  Anyone who isn't in Bush & Cheney's inner circle needs an Obama presidency.  

---

by: OH les @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:22:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How can I believe that?

Easily.
His actions speak louder than his words..

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:44:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What actions?

What actions counter any of the specific conditions I pointed out?

Ignoring for the moment the overall life experiences affecting either candidate's world view and priorities and sticking to a single LGBT issue, how do you negate Obama's action of speaking out against the California amendment drive while McCain spoke out in favor of it?

---

by: OH les @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:01:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, as an attorney

Telecom Immunity horrified me.
Kiss off the US Bill of Rights, about the only noe not violated recently is that no one has quartered British troops in your homes.

As a Lesbian and as a woman;
His embrace of the Faith Based Intitiatives disgusted me.

Then there was his ill timed "Marriage is between a man and a woman" during the early phases of the Prop 8 battle...

You cannot convince me. This "Constitutional Scholar" has yet to prove that he has any more respect for the document than his predecessor.

I don't care what McCain does about gays and lesbians, he is not a dem who originally tried to portray himself as more liberal than Clinton.
I am not voting for McCain(there is not enought Jemmies in the world to get me drunk enough to do that.)
I am just increasingly unlikely to vote for Obama.


I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:08:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you don't vote for Obama...

..then don't bitch about McCain.  You have a choice.  The thing is, your choice doesn't only affect you - it affects everybody in this country.

Most of us don't have the luxury of voting only for a candidate that agrees with us all of the time.  It's pretty much always a compromise.  The higher the office, usually the bigger the compromise.  If a candidate is going to get enough votes to be President, then they have to move to the middle.  The Christian conservatives don't like it any better than you do.  But how many of them are going to suck it up and vote for their party's candidate vs how many of ours?  That's the real question here.

---

by: OH les @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:30:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The republican party NEVER moves center

They only continue to move right, thus moving center right as well.  I find your strawman arguments to be disengenious.  

I've yet to see the Republican party move center in the last 25 years, while the dems have consitantly done so.  It seems that only democrats have to move to the center to be elected.

And that's only because some blathering talking head told them it was needed.  I think if the Party actually lived up to it's professed standards and tried to accomplish the things they put in the platform more people would vote for them before they allowed the republicans to tear the country apart.  But no, the dems have given in in every election in the last 25 years.  With the exception of a few Gay and Lesbian politicians elected this past cycle, most have been centrists.  

And those like Baldwin and Todd were elected because they were honest about who and what they were as politicians.  Honesty wins more votes than pandering and you are telling people to fall for the pandering out of political neccesities.  That doesn't leave much moral high ground.  Vote for this panderer over that panderer, Thank You, but no.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:05:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pragmatics

Again, how many Repubs will vote for an "imperfect" candidate vs how many Dems? Then add into that - how many usual Democratic voters are going to sit this out or vote McCain because of racism? You can call Obama a panderer all day long, but how will that help you when McCain appoints right-wing justices who overturn Roe v Wade?

Electoral politics in the primary can be idealism, but in the general, it becomes an exercise in pragmatism.

Do you want ENDA?  Do you think there's ANY way McCain would sign it?  If you think no, is there ANY way you think we'll get a veto-proof majority in the Senate?

It's big-picture time.  We don't have a comfortable margin of victory.  Do you honestly want a McCain presidency?  Or do you want at least a chance to move our goals forward?  With McCain there is NO chance.  With Obama, there is at minimum some chance.  

---

by: OH les @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:34:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We said the same aout the Clenis

And al it got us is Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA.  Both which did nothing for our community.  Everytime someone like you says we need to be prgmatic all I can remember is that pragmatism never got us anything.

I live in California and the only way we got marriage is by someone standing up and doing something.  So far I don't see anyone in this election standing up for US.

And I will say that I do think that we will be getting a veto proof majority in this election.  And your arguments are valid, but they ignore the real issues.  The things you list were all things we were talking about when we did have the majority and the white house, but we still didn't get anything.  How do you resolve that with your pragmatist ideals?  When one always votes for the lesser of two, one will always get the lesser of everything.  The small picture is just as important as the big picture, especially when we have been voting based on big picture issues without any return on our investement.

How many chances does one have to give before one realizes that they are giving it all away?

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:54:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This isn't the 1990's

Indeed, a whole big part of the country is a lot more comfortable with our community now than they were in the 1990's.  In '93, we didn't have Generals standing up and making public statements that we should allow GLBT citizens to serve openly - now we do.  People who are voting for the first time now have an entirely different attitude as a generation than their parents about equality for our community.  However, those people are not the majority of the electorate yet.

On the other hand, we now have state constitutional amendments preventing marriage equality in over half the states.  Over half the country has been mobilized since 1998 to amend their state Constitution to prevent equality.  That is why the Democratic nominee can't endorse marriage equality and expect to win.  

I live in a state with both a state law and a Constitutional amendment outlawing marriage equality.  I don't even have employment protection.  And I want a Democratic nominee who can win here.  Because that's what it will take to win nationally.

How many chances does one have to give before one realizes that they are giving it all away?

We have to give them as many chances as it takes to win.  We get them in office, and then we educate and get on them about what they're doing and get the more pregressive Dems to push them in the direction we want.  

What other choice do we have?

By the way, how do see us electing 15 additional Democratic senators?  That's a new one for me.

---

by: OH les @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 17:23:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You use fuzzy math.

We currently only need 10 Senators for a veto proof majority.  We have 49 at this moment with two independents who caucase with the Dems.  We really only need 9, and I threw in 10 so we could rid ourselves of Lieberman.  Election Projections show us gaining a projected total of 5 at this point in time, and most analysts are saying we should pick up more.  We currenttly control the Senate and House, so how did you come up with a need for 15 seats in the Senate?  If there are 50 members plus the VP then why would we need 15 if we already have 51?  Did you really not know that basic fact, or are you trying to make an exaggerated argument?

We have to give them as many chances as it takes to win.  We get them in office, and then we educate and get on them about what they're doing and get the more pregressive Dems to push them in the direction we want.  

So what, you think this might occur in 2050 then?  Based on past history of our "educating them" I would say it would take about that long to get some recognition.

In '93, we didn't have Generals standing up and making public statements that we should allow GLBT citizens to serve openly -

You are right in this regards, but fail to recall that we had a Presidential candidate who promised that he would throw out the ban on Gays in the military, only to forget the "education" we provided him, and we are now 16 years later with a worse policy.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 17:40:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My bad

It's been so long since we were within reach of a veto-proof majority that I was erroneously thinking we needed 2/3, or 66.  Thanks for the civics lesson.

---

by: OH les @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:30:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and, by the way..

He needs to win votes, to strike a resonant chord in the hearts of voters.

Obama's scrambling to the safety of the right won't do that for me.
I want to vote for a real democrat, not one whose only claim to the left is that John McCain remains to the right of him, while he is in fact to the right of Nixon himself.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:02:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hogwash

How can you believe that there is no significant differntce between McCain who has spoken out in favor of the California amendment drive and Obama who has spoken out against it?

They both pigheadedly oppose same sex marriage.
The fact that Obama favors second class citizenship through civil unions is strike two. Strike three is that Obama just won't shut up about his superstitious christist stance on SSM.  He repeats it over and over.  

How can you possible think that a man of mixed race who was raised by his single white mother would have the same priorities and perspecitves as the son of navy admirals who married into the money that would continue to finance his political carrer?  

They don't. McCain comes from wealth and Obama's hustling for it. The difference between the two is illustrated by Bill Clinton's indecent flood of last minute pardons to financial swindlers and drug dealers. Bush1 (and likely Bush2) didn't/won't have to do that because the Bush's are "old money" and not as desperate or greedy as the Clintons.

Basing you choice on silly things like McCain's really awful marriage skills and lack of computer skills is as lame and clueless as voting for Clinton because he could play the sax.

McCain is the Bush clone. Obama is the Clinton clone. Voting for either is voting against the GLBT agenda, for war and against unions and a fair standard of living for working people. What's important is their program and the programs of both parties and both candidates are right wing.

Voting for either of them is unprincipled. Instead of wasting it, vote for any left wing party or candidate or just sit it out.

And keep in mind that the antiwar movement will be demonstrating at the conventions of both prowar parties and that on January 1st the antiwar movement will begin a mass campaign to compel whichever clone wins to permanently withdraw all US military, "security" and mercenary units from the Middle East to US home bases and cut the purse strings that finance the apartheid regime imposed on Palestine.

Join us.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 18:10:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Changing the wording is a smart move

To our opponents and the uneducated sector of the general public, the words Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender have different meanings than they do to us, and rather negative connotations as well. Those words are also specific to us, as a small minority group that many people couldn't care less about.

But everybody in the country, and on the planet, has a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Those are neutral terms that non-GLBT people can relate to, terms that encompass everyone. As a result, they signify a unity that transcends Gay and Straight, Trans and Cis. That is the language of true equality.

Granted, there is a dimension of invisibilty in such inclusive language, but that dimension exists at the heart of equality itself. To become equal, we have to be willing to accept a little invisibility. Just as Black and White become invisible when they're replaced by Human, so do GLBT and non-GLBT.  

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:18:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look down thread: we deserved mention in 2004, 2000 and 1996

In 2000 and 1996, the party stated specifically that it would fight for full gay and lesbian inclusion. In 2004, it explicitly stated said that the national party would have no problem if states wanted to prohibit equality with regards to marriage. Now, we don't even rate a passing mention.

How is this a smart move? Given that national poll after national poll show a growing acceptance for GLBT people in everyday life and growing support for both equal marriage, equal employment, equal housing -- in fact, full, honest to God equality -- and how much this acceptance has increased over the last 12+ years, what has changed?  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:29:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why do we have to be mentioned by name?

Does the new Democratic platform specifically refer to blacks or women, or does it say "race" and "gender?"

 

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:56:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LGBT is the equivilant of race or gender

In regards to your question.  It is an all inclusive term such as race (race includes people of all colors like LGBT means all lesbians gays bisexuals and transsexuals.).

And since Obama is a lawyer he should realize that unless you specify something, the wording can always be interpretted as not including LGBT if it does not in fact explicity use the term.  That is exactly how the Marriage Ammendments did away with Domestic Partnerships in many states, because of the manipulation of language.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 17:06:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And yes, it mentions WOMEN spcifically as a group

page 11 from line 27 Opportunity for Women

to page 12 line 9.

They also mention Wommen's rights on a number of occassions, one glarring example is page 35:

35 Our policies will recognize that human rights are women's rights and that women's rights
36 are human rights.

(funny but isn't this an ideal space for at least a small mention of LGBT??  Are our rights not human enough for them??)  And following that is a section on HIV/AIDS and even there we gay men don't get a mention.  While in our country it is a predominantly GAY issue)

Then on page 46 line 9 there is a section on violence against women (why not just say violence against anyone?)
followed by a section on the same page about Equal rights for women (but not LGBT equal rights)

And African Americans are mentioned in regards to Housing on page 20 line 4

And Asian are mentioned as well as Pacific Islanders.

And we can't forget that the republican party doesn't consider us to be famlies, so unless we spell it out, we still are not covered.

So, If women and certain minorities can be mentioned by name, why not at least a mention og LGBT?

(Please note that I do support the issues I highlighted above, and have no annimosity towards those mentioned as I think the issues are just as, but not MORW important.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 17:27:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dancing lessons needed when a politician can't be up front and honest.

  Why can't any of these people just say what the position is on LGBT issues and stand by them.

 They might as well have a one line answer to any LGBT question. We don't hold the Republican's View regarding LGBT issues.

 The DNC knows one thing, they need the LGBT to go and vote for them.  Any concrete answwer will be dividing.

 Same-Sex Marriage should be a no brainer for all Democratic Candidates no matter what level of government they are trying to be elected to.  

 Howard Dean, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest, here is an answer you might want to try,

It is the Democratic Party's Position that all committed couples who are IN LOVE deserve and should have EQUAL RIGHTS. It is the Democratic Party's Position that we don't want to be seen in History as the Party that wants to Discriminate Against any United States Citizen.  

 And than answer any questions direct and honestly.  There is FOUR years of history so far that would the Straw Man and  Gay Boogie Man arguments and attacks from the Republicans.

 Post all the Bull Shit Reasons that the Fundies and Bigots use to Deny Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry.  And than We answer them with direct and honest answers.  Then we can send them to all of the Democratic Candidates, and Even Republican ones.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM CDT

If you think we are a group of bitchy queens and whiney dykes NOW...

Wait until the Democratic Party gives up all pretense and tells what they really think of GLBT rights.

The fact is, they don't have to comit to anything with regards to us. We are loyal and obedient Democrats, by definition, just as conservative Christians are loyal and obedient Republicans. As long as meaningful voter choice is supressed and the Two Party holds all the power, that is just how things will remain. If you don't like that, then maybe you should move to Canada or England or Sweden or Germany or any of a dozen other countries that have real democracies.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:17:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Token Voter.

  That will only last so long.  We in the LGBT let it happen.  They know LGBT rights will be an issue, an issue they want to hide from this election.  I am sure in the backrooms of the DNC and other offices they are wishing we were not here and being vocal.

 The fact is we are here, we have our families, friends and many large corperations that support us.  The Gay Boogie Man is dying.  They also know that this election we will not bail on them.

 But I also know that a lot of Progressives and those just left of center are getting fed up with them.  If it wasn't for a people are tired of Bush, the Democratic Candidates wouldn't have a chance.

 After the 2006 mid term elections the Democrats were absolutly spineless.  Many understand that with a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate and Bush in the White House, a lot couldn't be done on the National Level.  But many of the Democrats caved in many places to easy in my oppinion.  

 We will deliver this election and gain more seats in the House and Senate, and Barak will win the White House.  Unless somethings drastically change between now and November.  

 The big election this year, like it or not is the prop 8 vote in California.  If we succeed in defeating it, and we do deliver more seats and the White House, Things better happen between 2008 - 2010, or I can promise you there will be hell to pay in the Mid Term elections.  We will not forget.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 22:08:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait for the press release.................

I'll wait to see the final document and the press conference.

Platform writing is a complicated and frustrating thing to a lot of people. On one hand it's just not possible to put every detail in the exact wording everybody wants. On the other hand the the spirit of the document must reflect the goals and principles that aren't word for word spelled out in detail.

There was a lot of work put into distilling (not watering down but actually making it more potent) the platform to reflect things we can use in the future as an argument to hold elected democrats accountable.

---

by: goddesspdx @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 13:30:59 PM CDT

Enough excuses for the Dems

They know the impact of their words.
Words like "faith based intitiative" and "union of a man and a woman."
Like "Wireless immunity"

So...this is not an accident; this is Obama doing posing as a Southern  Democrat of the early 60's

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 13:46:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Posing?

"this is Obama ... posing as a Southern  Democrat of the early 60's".

Obama not posing, he's Clintons clone and they're both as rightwing as their cousins across the aisle. The big difference is they lie and think they're deceiving us. The Republicans don't even bother to lie.

That's why most voters in most elections just sit it out.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 18:23:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The nominee in as far as he/she has the most delegates gets what they want

The candidate doesn't vote for, doesn't write planks, and doesn't approve the platform committee's final judgement.
The Democratic Party has tons of cautious Party Wonks who will guarantee no plank that they deem too controvercial gets a Majority vote.
Regardless, having an  approved Platform doesn't mean the candidate promises you all those positions on issues.
Candidates pick and choose what they support.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:29:04 PM CDT

just a reminder

can anyone quote a platform plank from 2004, from 2000, from 1998?

anyone?

"full of sound and fury; signifying nothing"
~Macbeth

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:36:53 PM CDT

Well...

From 2004:

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at
the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate
President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage
Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.

From 2000

We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians. We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation. This would include an equitable alignment of benefits. We recognize the importance of new battles against forms of discrimination and disadvantage that stand as barriers to communities and families, such as
environmental injustices and predatory lending practices. And we will fight for full funding and full staffing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other civil rights enforcement agencies so they can do their job of ensuring that America lives up to its creed of equal rights and equal opportunity for all.

In 1998, the national platform of 1996 was still in effect:

We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end discrimination against gay men and lesbians and further their full inclusion in the life of the nation. Over the last four years, President Clinton and the Democrats have worked aggressively to enforce the letter and spirit of civil rights law.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:04:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I bet they also stated

they wanted more mass transit, recycling, and world peace too.

I imagine the entire platform could be read by any Miss Universe candidate in her questions portion of the pageant

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:23:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I said in an earlier thread, platforms are propaganda pieces

They are designed to make the base feel good about the party and to attract others who might be wavering, all while making folks feel like they are being promised everything while comitting the party to absolutely nothing.

But note that if the proposed platform stands as is, it will be the first time in at least 12 years that the Democratic Platform excluded mention of gays and lesbians. I cannot call that progress.

(On the other hand, at least we have gotten mention in the three previous platforms; that is more than transgendered Americans and bisexuals have ever gotten.)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:50:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know...

This is a Washington State thing, but for what it is worth,
I was there when Eileen Macoll got absolutely blasted for speaking out AGAINST supporting LGBT rights at house parties and meetings, specifically because she was telling people not to support our platform issues in the interest of "not scaring off Joe and Jane Six Pack" (this happened in Whitman County). I also got about a dozen phone calls and God only knows how many e-mails about it. People were really pissed off. I was on the board of Washington State Stonewall Dems at the time, so I got an earful. Then Paul's parting shot was to call her out on it as he was leaving office.

(Apologies to those of you not in Washington, but Lurleen, Techbear and others will know who I am talking about.)

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 14:48:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have had absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic Party since 1998

I was a PCO and delegate to the state convention. I helped support the plank resolution which strongly supported equal marriage in the aftermath of Clinton signing DOMA into law.

I watched first hand as eastern legislators starting shrieking and frothing at the mouth at how they adamantly REFUSED to allow such a horrible plank be added to the platform. I saw Janice Van Cleeve, the prime mover behind the the resolution, take the floor and tell these delegates that the platform was just propaganda for the masses, and that those who objected to the measure would in no way be held accountable for refusing to support it, even if that refusal took the form of actively and vocally opposing equal marriage. I witnessed the empty victory of that plank getting added to the state platform.

Two days latter, on Monday, I resigned my position as PCO and have had nothing to do with the party since. If, after all that hard work and struggle, the resolution was ultimately meaningless, if the chief backer of the resolution was willing to stand up and tell lawmakers they could openly defy the state platform.... Why then bother?

In the ten years since then, my disillusionment with the party has grown by leaps and bounds at the federal, state and local level.

So sorry, I may be a Washingtonian, but I am not well versed in current party machinations.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 15:27:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Eastern Washington

We have some good folks locally and up in Spokane, but it has been a very SLOW process. The biggest problem is that we can't get any decent candidates around here above county level. I swear, I only got stuck being PCO because nobody else wanted the job; I ran more so that I could support Ed Murray on his anti-discrimination bill than anything else, but we did make some real progress on other LGBT issues as well. We have gained a lot of allies out here. Whitman is changing for the better (believe it or not); once we got some people who trusted the rural folks to be able to think if someone gave them all the facts, it made a big difference. We just need to come up with a candidate who can actually beat MacMorris-Rogers, and I don't think the guy running this time can do it, either.


susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 16:55:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not quite

At another level the platform is very much a statement of who Democrats are and what Democrats think they are, and want to do at that moment in time.

It's at least supposed to suggest where the dividing lines are in the society as a whole, and the problems, and why to choose one side.

Like it or not, we do live in historical time to some extent.

---

by: amidthefallingsnow @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 17:09:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well , the Democrats are defining themselves

as Rockefeller Republicans.

They certainly are not in favour of my equality. Their candidate is on record as supporting my permanent second class status.

And....I am tired of the perpetual apocalyptic threat of "Supreme Court Justices" from the Dems and their supporters. Yes, more conservative justices would be a disaster. But an Obama appointee cut from the same cloth as a Donnie McClurkin would be just as bad as as a McCain appointment of a "Scalito"

Given FISA, Same-Sex marriage and Faith Based Initiative views I've no more hope for an Obama appointee...

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 18:54:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't blame me...

I supported and still support Hillary....

---

by: amidthefallingsnow @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 23:00:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honestly, Maura, I agree

I am having the same doubts you are about SCOTUS. I am no longer certain that Obama would actually appoint more liberal justices than McCain. After the FISA vote and his Faith Based Programs, I have serious doubts. It seems to me that Obama so want the votes of the young evangelicals that he may end up being more conservative in practice that McCain.

Obama's state-level voting record no longer means much, since the game has changed. I have never regretted caucusing for someone before, but I really wish I had caucused for Hillary in the primary.

At this point I am seriously considering voting for McKinney.  

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 16:29:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

At this point

I'd even consider voting for McKinley...

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 16:37:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also want to point out...

Allow me to draw your attention to the 2004 platform:

In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there.

In other words, if a state wishes to prohibit equal marriage, or even criminalize it, the national party has no problem with that. While the earlier platforms make no mention of marriage rights (despite the 2000 platform being written four years after President Clinton signed the "Defense" of Marriage Act into federal law), their agressive defense of equal rights implied a defense of equal marriage. That implication was explicitly removed in 2004, so our disappearance from the 2008 platform is part of a trend.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:00:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another reminder

The Obama campaign, in an historic first, solicited input into the platform.  The campaign encouraged voters to have platform parties to provide specific input, complete with language.  

I certainly hope that anyone who is unhappy with the content of the platform took the campaign up on its request for input.  

---

by: OH les @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:53:00 PM CDT

"Solicited input" does not imply that the input was actually considered and used

And even if the input was considered and used, that would mean that it was collectively all Democratic activists who disappeared us; it was not the party leaders alone. I should feel better about being dismissed by popular vote rather than executive decision?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:55:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I never got the memo.

Did they solicit anyone other than Obama volunteers?  They certainly didn't contact me regarding the platform, although I do get fundraising letters from them.  One could draw conclusions...

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:56:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you could

Occasionally I am reminded of crowds outside of the Casa Rosada, except this time crying over and over "Obama..Obama...Obama"

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:01:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How do you expect them to find you if you don't sign up?

Is it unreasonable to think they're going to ask the folks who took the time to bother to commit?  

Do you want solicitations for platform input sent out to Republicans?

Sign up on my.barackobama.com and you'll hear from them.

Or, join the Stonewall Democrats - the invitation for specific GLBT input also came that way.

To what extent they use the input, who knows.  But at least they asked - it's up to us to respond.  

---

by: OH les @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:46:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not true

It is and has been my understanding that each Presidential cycle sees changes in the platform and that those are done by the platform committee which gets input from various groups.  This particular cycle just see's a little more visibility in the asking for advice.  That doesn't mean it wasn't done by groups before.

You also didn't seem to notice that Lurleen mentioned that she gets donor emails from them.  When you sign up for one aspect of the campaign it signs you up for all aspects of their email outreach.  Also, I am signed up as a volunteer, but I never recieved an email either.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 17:01:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I GOT TWO OR THREE OF THEM.

I have been a small donor too. Not much and not recently, but I think i have gotten all the notices anyone mentions. Some come from MOVE.ON too. and Some from Dem Party.

Did you get notice to be notified first of VP pick. I got 4 of those. 

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 @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:23:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I got the VP one today

But it was from the DNC.  I haven't recieved anything from the Obama Camp for at least 2 months.  I used to get everything.  Oh well, at least someone sent me something...

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you missed my point, i think.

they have already found me, but only to ask me for money.  if they wanted to do a general outreach, they knew exactly who i am and where i live.  i guess i must just be categorized in their database under "gAyTM".

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 17:34:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Platforms are for the passionate and young

While my remarks seem to dismiss platform fights, I once fought just as passionately, and the Party needs those people to hold their feet to the fire, and to be broader and more inclusive every election.
I'm tired, and no longer young, so spending my energy in my gardens is preferrable...and as it turns out, my gardens have given back to me 100 fold, what any state or national platform gave me.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 16:52:37 PM CDT

I heard the platform was just amended today.

It adds the words, "including same-sex families" right after "full inclusion of all families".

I guess it took considerable pressure from several GLBT organizations to get that change.  But, as far as I can tell, the Democratic party is so ASHAMED of the words "gay", "lesbian", and "transgendered" that they will not be used in the platform in any way, shape, or form.

But hey, It's OK, because the feeling is mutual -- I'm too ashamed of the Democrats to vote for them this time around.

---

by: Storm @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 00:18:37 AM CDT

I know the feeling

  And in no way, shape or form am I going to beg you to hold your nose and pull the lever.

 I suppose it will be on how I feel on November 4.  I can't vote for McSame, but I can do a write in vote for LGBT

 And I just wonder if we all got together and all did a write in for LGBT, would they get the message?
 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 02:51:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would it matter if they got the message?

They would just ignore it.

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 16:33:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's a little disingenuous to harp about gay, lesbian, and transgendered words missing

When same sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity terms are included.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 20:46:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you don;t imagine gay, lesbian and transgender are the words repigs will search the platform for?

Then they'll build a f*ckin 527 ad around those planks.

if someone want's Obama's positions on gay issues, look at his website, watch his answers at HRC debate, listen to several of his speeches and Michelle's speeches covering LGBT issues.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 20:52:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

is it Jan 20th....YET?

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 00:21:02 AM CDT

IF that day ever comes

I am still waiting for Bush/Cheney's Fire at the Reichstag and suspended election.

(Can you believe it's hit the point where I am more cynical than you are?)

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 16:35:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]