Obama's Open Letter to the LGBT Community

[panthera]

I thought folks might find this interesting.
For many people, it will be a make or break statement and I am strongly reminded of Robert Kennedy and Barry Goldwater.
I apologize in advance for the length of the text. It's all over the place here in Europe this morning, we are following the US campaign more closely than at any time, ever.

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBTAmericans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.

In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system. The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention.

I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBTAmericans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

 

[oxydolfan1]

Petek, what about if you're NOT married?

Are private corporations obligated to extend benefits to same-sex couples only if they married, or if they are unmarried as well?

 

[neptunebob]

Compared to all I read here, my reasons may seem a bit silly

During the Democratic primary election (for PA is April 18) I plan to vote for Hillary, even though I wanted Dennis Kucinich. I heard once that Obama's young daughter stated that Obama was "Snory and Stinky". I just cannot get that image out of my head to vote for Obama. I'm hoping Hillary will use Estee Lauder.

The other issue with Barack is that even though people say he is "inspiring" every time I have heard him on television he sounds like the "teacher" to Charlie Brown on a Peanuts cartoon - "WauWa Wau WauWa Wau Wau". Do I want to hear that for the next 4 years in a State of the Union Address? I wonder if he can beat McCain - At least John McCain might smell and speak better.

As for the gay benefits issue, why not have a single-payer national health care system, which would make this issue disappear? Oh, I better put on my "asbestos pantsuit" for this one!

 

[buffster]

Interesting...

I usually don't talk politics in this environment... But, as a business communicator and PR professional I often see the "spin" in the rhetoric, which I find a major turn off. These sentiments sound great in theory, but, has anyone seen this letter published in the U.S.? I haven't seen it anywhere. If not, I find it interesting that it is receiving attention outside of the U.S. Perhaps I missed something. I haven't heard Senator Obama ever voice this perspective.

I'm reminded of an old adage--actions speak louder than words. The placement of this letter in the foreign press makes me question his motives. Is Obama trying to court the LGBT vote on the DL? He certainly doesn't seem to be putting his thoughts on the matter front and center. Just my humble opinion...

 

[panthera]

Mike,

I agree with your sentiments - for the last eight years, I have taught English to MBA students. The very same "young dynamic managers" I so often rail against here.
But I think this may simply be a question of the time difference between here and there, I first read this in several US blogs this morning, my time.
I'm nine hours ahead of you over here, so probably this will receive more notice as the day wears on.
Here are two US blogs featuring it:
www.andrewsullivan.com (Post at 4.27pm, so a bit down the page)
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/open_letter_from_barack_obama_to_the_lgb.phpI note that Google returns several other blogs in the meantime, but you know how these things go viral.
Make of it what we will, it is certainly a statement which can not fail to enrage the christianists who have held your country in thrall the last seven years. Obviously, and I speak as a citizen of a country which grants us full civil rights, we need to see if actions follow the words.

If it is only spin, well, ok, nothing new there. But I stand by my sentiments: You don't vote *for* a politician, you vote *against* the most evil politicians.

 

[buffster]

Keven,

Thank you for sharing. I didn't mean to diminish your post. And, I agree that the ideas he voiced are important.

It will be interesting to see if Obama's letter gets play in the mainstream. Again, while the ideas voiced and his purported position are, IMHO, important, I think it's noteworthy that his letter is appearing in two blogs. It's not exactly MSNBC or CNN. IMHO, it will become meaningful if these ideas and his purported position become part of the national conversation during this upcoming presidential election.

 

[oxydolfan1]

Not taking sides....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL
Seeing Mayor Gavin Newsom on the national stage with former president Bill Clinton on Monday night is a reminder of how political winds can change. On the eve of the biggest night of the presidential primaries, Newsom shared the spotlight during a town hall meeting staged and broadcast on cable TV and satellite radio by the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign.

But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

Today, of course, Obama's people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."

"Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said. "Including me, his deputy campaign manager."

But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either.

"He was pissed," said one former staffer.

In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

He was asked about the flak he took after announcing that San Francisco would allow same-sex marriages - flak that included claims he had helped Republicans by handing them a wedge issue heading into a presidential election year. In the interview, Newsom admitted he'd been hammered over the decision. "And I'm not just saying from Republicans," he added at the time.

"One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that particular person - not once, but twice - because of this issue."

Now, could that be why Newsom declared his support for Hillary Clinton a good six months ago? San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who was concerned enough about the 2004 story to look into it, insists the mayor's endorsement of the former first lady is more likely a case of repayment of political favors. And Newsom said after the town meeting that the snub "had nothing to do with my decision."

But Brown, as savvy as they get when it comes to reading political motivations, thinks the 2004 snub played a part.

"I think he has harbored this resentment for years," Brown said of Newsom, adding that Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the gay-marriage mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign."

Though same-sex marriage is still a hot-button issue in 2008, it is no longer the shocker that had the country in an uproar four and five years ago. Until you go back and look at the news stories from those days, it is easy to forget how radical and unpopular Newsom's stand was.

And, no, it wasn't just the right-wingers who were upset. It was Democrats, too, particularly those running in the presidential primary. John Kerry, for example, was careful to stage his Bay Area appearances in Oakland, not San Francisco, after the controversy hit.

"I don't know anybody in the party who was happy with him, except me," Brown said. "He was all alone out there. He was the poster child for same-sex marriage worldwide."

That's why Brown says he doesn't blame Obama for his caution. Today, of course, the Illinois senator is happy to embrace gay causes. But in 2004, nationally, same-sex marriage was a radical notion.

"What they ought to say is, 'Damn right I did it, and I'd do it again,' " Brown said of the Obama camp. "He was in a race for the Senate, and I am guessing that downstate Illinois is a pretty red (meaning conservative) group of voters."

But on the eve of the biggest vote of the primaries - with the big prize of a California win at stake - the Obama campaign isn't taking Brown's advice.

"They could attack Obama for a lot of things, but this isn't one of them," said Hildebrand. "And for this to pop up on the eve of the election is very suspicious. There's just no truth to it."

To which Brown replies, "Why would I make it up?"

It seems clear that something happened. Staffers say there is still a chill between the two, although Monday night Newsom gave Obama his qualified support.

"I believe in his leadership qualities, and I look forward to voting for him," Newsom said.

"In eight years."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

 

[oxydolfan1]

Not taking sides....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL
Seeing Mayor Gavin Newsom on the national stage with former president Bill Clinton on Monday night is a reminder of how political winds can change. On the eve of the biggest night of the presidential primaries, Newsom shared the spotlight during a town hall meeting staged and broadcast on cable TV and satellite radio by the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign.

But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

Today, of course, Obama's people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."

"Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said. "Including me, his deputy campaign manager."

But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either.

"He was pissed," said one former staffer.

In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

He was asked about the flak he took after announcing that San Francisco would allow same-sex marriages - flak that included claims he had helped Republicans by handing them a wedge issue heading into a presidential election year. In the interview, Newsom admitted he'd been hammered over the decision. "And I'm not just saying from Republicans," he added at the time.

"One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that particular person - not once, but twice - because of this issue."

Now, could that be why Newsom declared his support for Hillary Clinton a good six months ago? San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who was concerned enough about the 2004 story to look into it, insists the mayor's endorsement of the former first lady is more likely a case of repayment of political favors. And Newsom said after the town meeting that the snub "had nothing to do with my decision."

But Brown, as savvy as they get when it comes to reading political motivations, thinks the 2004 snub played a part.

"I think he has harbored this resentment for years," Brown said of Newsom, adding that Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the gay-marriage mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign."

Though same-sex marriage is still a hot-button issue in 2008, it is no longer the shocker that had the country in an uproar four and five years ago. Until you go back and look at the news stories from those days, it is easy to forget how radical and unpopular Newsom's stand was.

And, no, it wasn't just the right-wingers who were upset. It was Democrats, too, particularly those running in the presidential primary. John Kerry, for example, was careful to stage his Bay Area appearances in Oakland, not San Francisco, after the controversy hit.

"I don't know anybody in the party who was happy with him, except me," Brown said. "He was all alone out there. He was the poster child for same-sex marriage worldwide."

That's why Brown says he doesn't blame Obama for his caution. Today, of course, the Illinois senator is happy to embrace gay causes. But in 2004, nationally, same-sex marriage was a radical notion.

"What they ought to say is, 'Damn right I did it, and I'd do it again,' " Brown said of the Obama camp. "He was in a race for the Senate, and I am guessing that downstate Illinois is a pretty red (meaning conservative) group of voters."

But on the eve of the biggest vote of the primaries - with the big prize of a California win at stake - the Obama campaign isn't taking Brown's advice.

"They could attack Obama for a lot of things, but this isn't one of them," said Hildebrand. "And for this to pop up on the eve of the election is very suspicious. There's just no truth to it."

To which Brown replies, "Why would I make it up?"

It seems clear that something happened. Staffers say there is still a chill between the two, although Monday night Newsom gave Obama his qualified support.

"I believe in his leadership qualities, and I look forward to voting for him," Newsom said.

"In eight years."

 

[oxydolfan1]

just sayin'......

....the egg doesn't get eaten, as hot as it gets cooked....

Gospel Preacher's Anti-Gay 'Rant' at Obama Concert

By: DOUG IRELAND

The controversy over what Mother Jones magazine called Senator Barack Obama's "pander-to-black-hatred tour" featuring homophobic "ex-gay" preacher-singer Donnie McClurkin continued this past week.

An Obama gospel concert was held on Sunday, October 28, in Columbia, South Carolina as the final stage in what the presidential candidate billed as a "Forty Days of Faith and Family" tour of the Palmetto State. A September poll conducted by Winthrop University and ETV showed that 74 percent of South Carolina African Americans believe homosexuality is "unacceptable."

In an attempt to mollify the widespread protests by the LGBT community over McClurkin's appearance, the Obama campaign had hastily arranged at the last minute for an openly gay South Carolina pastor, Andy Sidden, to join the roster at the concert. But Sidden's appearance was notably brief and anti-climactic; he said a short prayer to the auditorium at the very beginning of the program, when the arena was only about half full, and then he left.

The Obama campaign had assured members of the LGBT community that McClurkin - who has told the Washington Post that he's in "a war" against what he calls "the curse of homosexuality" - would not use the event to speak against what he claims is "the choice" of homosexuality.

Instead, McClurkin delivered what outspoken Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan, who is openly gay, afterward described on his blog as a "rant."

McClurkin, in his impassioned, angry outburst at his gay critics - who, he claimed, were trying to "vilify" him - shouted, "God delivered me from homosexuality!" A portion of his remarks at the concert can be seen at: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/29/mcclurkin.speech.cnn?iref=videosearch .

Sullivan, who just two nights earlier had sidestepped a question about the gospel singer's connection to the campaign on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher," wrote, "McClurkin, in short, should never have been allowed to speak at this event, because his words are inherently divisive, his record of comments on gay people offensive, and the point of the event was allegedly unifying... I still believe that broadly speaking, [Obama's] is the only major candidacy right now that offers the kind of change we need. But what happened on that stage was inexcusable, stupid, and damaging. I don't blame any gay American for jumping the Obama ship over it."

One of Obama's most prominent gay supporters has already quit the campaign over the McClurkin affair - Bob Farmer, whom the Washington Post has called a "legendary fundraiser." The openly gay Farmer, who is from Boston, first came to national prominence as chief fundraiser for the 1988 presidential drive of then-Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis; served as finance chair of the Democratic National Committee during President George H.W. Bush's administration; was a top fundraiser for Bill Clinton; and in 2004 served as national treasurer for John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Farmer resigned from the Obama campaign last Friday, in what a source close to him told this reporter was "disgust" at Obama's refusal to cancel McClurkin's campaign appearance after the protests against it began.

Meanwhile, African-American journalist Clay Cane, who writes for Vibe magazine, published a lengthy interview this Tuesday on his blog (http://claycane.blogspot.com/) with a man who claimed he had a sexual affair with McClurkin "twice a month" from 2001 to 2004, which Cane noted "is ironically during the height of McClurkin's anti-gay rants and calls for conversion."

The man, who was identified only with the pseudonym "Rob," said that McClurkin's preaching against homosexuality and claims to have been "cured" of it by Christ are phony and hypocritical.

"Rob" said that McClurkin "gets into role playing, which is of course he's the bottom and he wants you to treat him rough. He wants to talk rough and that's not my demeanor, that's not in me. I can play a role and I did it, but I didn't feel comfortable because it wasn't me. I felt stupid actually... He was like a different person, the tone of his voice. He referred to his asshole as 'pussy.' Stuff like that, 'You want to fuck this pussy, don't you?' You know that type of thing."

Asked by Cane, "Was there any talk in your conversations about being gay is wrong, this is an abomination, or conversion?" the man called "Rob" replied, "Early on, no - he would relate it to being lonely. Not being able to be who you really want to be, who you are, and that was a little later. I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'Well, I'm in gospel, I have fans, I'm about to start this church, and the church has a lot of promise. It can be a big thing,' which it ended up being. He said, 'I have a position to uphold and I have an image, but the thing is I know who I am and I'm going to have to work on some things; I have some things to work on.' I said, 'Is it that simple? Can you just work on it like that? Cut on a switch'... He feels that he has to say that to please people. He said, 'I don't want people to believe that I'm still doing it.'"

At the same time, the Obama campaign released a statement signed by some of its religious and gay supporters in support of McClurkin's campaign appearance, claiming that an event starring the anti-gay preacher was part of Obama's commitment to "dialogue."

The pronouncement asserted that while "Obama has said that he 'strongly disagrees' with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African-American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin."

Furthermore, the statement said, "We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African-American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree."

A majority of the seven non-religious gay signatories to the statement were identified by the Obama campaign as former directors or staff members of the Human Rights Campaign.

Condemnation of the Obama campaign's statement was swift in the blogosphere. For example, John Aravosis, writing on his AmericaBlog, said, "I simply don't believe that Obama would have the same reaction, be just as welcoming, if we were talking about racists or anti-Semites. He wouldn't say that we're all one big tent. He would kick the racist or the anti-Semite to the curb. Not to mention, 'the big tent' concept traditionally means people who have differing political views, even differing political loyalties (Republican and Democrat). I've never heard a politician invoke the big tent to mean racists and their victims. "

Aravosis went on to write, "This is new. And it's terribly unnerving. I mean, we're to believe that the fact that Obama, alone among Democratic candidates, is willing to openly welcome bigots into his campaign makes him the best candidate for voters concerned about civil rights. And the corollary, the worst candidate for someone who cares about civil rights is the candidate who actually stands up against the bigots. So the best way to promote tolerance is to tolerate and embrace intolerance?"

Aravosis called that logic "wacked."

And in the wake of McClurkin's South Carolina appearance and the Obama campaign statement embracing those who think like McClurkin, openly gay African-American writer and film critic David Ehrenstein wrote - in a Los Angeles Times op-ed October 31 - that Obama's "continued relevance to gay and lesbian African Americans is over."

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18978548&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=15

 

[oxydolfan1]

speaking of "christianists", not to mention the &q

I have no doubt that Donnie McClurkin helped deliver the black community and South Carolina to Obama's feet.

The question is, will we allow the likes of Andrew Sullivan to deliver our vote to him as well?

 

[panthera]

well,

From a European perspective, there is absolutely no justification for the discrimination against homosexuals. We have legal rights here (I guess I should qualify that, there are still some European countries such as Poland where women and gays are treated like dirt. But they are true exceptions.)
None of the countries which have granted us rights have succumbed to any of the disasters which the christianists foretell, just the opposite, actually.
I don't really understand the passionate feelings about Sullivan, to be honest. No, he is not of my political color. I disagree with many of his opinions.
But at least he has the balls to live openly, and his position on marriage was not an easy one to maintain in the gay intellectual world of the US in the last part of the 20th century. I very well remember the nastiness of attacks my husband and I suffered back in the early 1980's for 'buying into the heterosexual, patriarchal,blah blah blah.
If someone doesn't believe in marriage, fine. But how dare they prevent me from marrying the man whom I love?

Anyway, the letter is not only in two blogs. I don't much care to post long lists, so only listed two which I had personally read. Currently, there are well over 50 blogs/sources carrying the text, increasing rapidly.

 

[maytagbear]

That may well be----

but where was this statement a week, two weeks ago?

I've already voted (absentee).

For Hillary.

Lawrence/Maytagbear

 

[gyrafoam]

Oooohhhh. Let me see if I can be diplomatic for a change.

Time after time the politicians have used gay-baiting to get extra votes, and the minute they get into office they forget about us. They talk the talk but don't have the genitalia to walk the walk. Ad nauseum.

Obama has some pretty "pie in the sky" ideas. He may have meant well when he started out but he has begun to get some extremely corupt organizations behind him that do not bode well for his political future.

The "mob-mentality" that is sweeping him up in popularity right now is scarily reminicent of the "mob-mentality" that got Bush elected.

He talks of change but doesn't say much about just what that change is-------or how he will accomplish it.

IMO there has been so much damage by our current administration that no matter who gets in office they will not be able do very much in a four-year term.

It is really frustrating.
"We the People" need a good strong leader who truly represents us------- for a change.

I don't see anyone out there right now who I think will do that.

 

[gansky1]

And it was Clinton that swept the "gay vote" by pulling the military service card which he then backpedaled on once in office and we ended up with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which has worked so well for thousands of military personnel that have been forcibly removed by the armed services despite their pleas to the "justice" system for help. Now we have more smoke and mirrors from the Obama camp and I'm sure Hillary is lighting a fire under this issue this morning as well, not to be outdone.

So much focus has been placed on Obama and his claims of bringing change to government and Washington and clearly, the people of this country want and need it. At no time in my lifetime have I seen a movement like this. What both Hillary and Barack should be talking about is change from the local level. The president will have very little power to effect any real change without the cooperation and willingness of the congress. Inspire voters to come to the realization that the problem really lies with their Senators and Representatives and until those positions are changed, there will be no change.

Just like judges, local government positions, state elections and congressional seats - sweeping change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up. Voters have an opportunity to effect a revolution in this country - a real revolution that will have real teeth if they just use the power they have.

 

[panthera]

Well, gosh

I am glad to see that there is some real feeling out there - the reason I posted the damn thing in the first place.
Please note, I have no conviction he will do us any good - all I know is that if we continue the way we have, there will be even more refugees from the US over here than there are already.
So, my dears, what to do, what to do.

Shall we all stand upon our principles, turn up our noses and maintain that they are all the same? After what the christianists have done to us the last seven years?
Or, shall we hope for the best - by voting and prepare for the worst by getting and staying politically and economically active?

I, too, could rant on and on about the lies and hypocrisies of politicians towards us. Except for three childhood friends, ALL (how often do I shout around here?) ALL the friends of my late youth and early adulthood are dead of Aids.
I am separated from my partner six months out of the year because of the laws of the US.
I was not permitted to do the work I was trained for because a change in US administration brought in the christianists who feared that homosexuals, even 'open' ones such as myself would be security risks...
And on and on and on.
But still, I dare to hope.
Again: You never get to vote for a politician, the most you can hope for is that your vote against a politician will have an effect. It may be that Clinton and Obama are just blowing hot air up our collective asses about health care, human rights and equality. But we know for certain what the other side wants.
I am not naive, nor yet an idealist. We have to work with things as they are, that they may become as we want them to be.

 

[perc-o-prince]

panthera

I agree wholeheartedly- we vote for the lesser of two evils!

Saw a cute bumper sticker this morning: "Never thought I'd miss Nixon!"

Chuck

 

[~sudsshane]

You know....

If Obama wins the Presidency, and that is a BIG "If", I am willing to bet my house that most of what he is promising won't be delivered. He talks about bipartisanship and changing Washington for the better. He makes grandiose promises, yet his voting record in the Senate has been mediocre at best.
Since announcing his candidacy for President, He has "Missed" or "Not Voted" on more votes than any candidate running for President. Some of the important votes he chose to not vote on include the National Security of our country.

Here are just a few votes from Senator Obama's record that he didn't bother to cast a vote on..He was present when these votes were cast, but chose to not take a stand

7/13/07
Vote 247: H R 1585: Dorgan Amdt. No. 2135, as Amended; Relative to bringing Osama bin Laden and other leaders of al Qaeda to justice.

(Not Voting) Obama didn't bother to vote!!! Doesn't Obama think bringing Bin Laden to justice is important to our national security??

7/18/07
Vote 253: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 2669; College Cost Reduction Act of 2007

(Not Voting) Obama also did not bother to vote for the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, yet now he supports giving a $4000.00 credit to college students in return for 1 year community service...Wait, he is running for President now isn't he???

7/19/07
Vote 263: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA Ensign Amdt. No. 2355; To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that individuals are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity or fraud.

(Not Voting) Obama, once again, didn't bother to cast a vote. Tell me my fellow washer buddies, do you think a vote on protecting Social Security from unlawful activity or fraud is too important a vote to miss?? I do!

7/26/07
Vote 278: H R 2638: Graham Amdt. No. 2480; To ensure control over the United States borders and strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws.

(Not Voting) Once again, Senator Obama chose not to vote!!!! Imagine what will happen should he win the Presidency? Scary, isn't it??

7/26/07
Vote 284: H R 1: H.R. 1, Conference Report; Improving America's Security Act of 2007

(Not Voting) Once again, Senator Obama obviously doesn't think ensuring America's security is or should be a priority, DISGRACEFUL!

So tell me my fellow washer buddies, don't we elect our public officials to do a job? Place a YES or NO Vote?

As far as LGBT issues go, talk is just talk. Quite frankly, Obama can say he is for gay marriage which he is not, it still wouldn't matter to me. He "denounced" and "rejected" Louis Farrakhan for his anti- semetic comments in the past, yet he campaigns with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin who has said homosexuality is "a curse that can be cured through prayer" Why won't Obama "denounce" and "reject" this man?
When is the mainstream media, which is so Anti-Clinton, going to call him on this? Probably never..

Hillary's big mistake is she viewed herself, as did her campaign, as inevitable. As we all know in American politics, nothing is inevitable. She has the experience, skills and Bill Clinton by her side, yet a 3rd year freshman senator could possibly end her presidential ambitions.

Leave it to the Democratic party to vote with their hearts instead of their heads and in the end, they always end up screwing themselves.

Prediction for 2008? John McCain will be elected the 44th President of the United States.

 

[rp2813]

I voted for Hillary. If Obama gets the nomination there is no question I'll vote for him. The main thing that has to happen is the stopping of the christianist gun toting right wing agenda that is in the process of bankrupting the U.S. Bush has bankrupted every corporate entity he has ever headed and is doing a fine job of it with an entire country now. Just this morning I saw a clip from a press conference where Bush was asked what he would like to say to the average U.S. consumer who is facing gasoline prices of $4 a gallon. Bush stopped the guy mid-question and advised he wasn't aware that gas prices were approaching that mark. With leadership so out of touch with the average American and completely focused on a bankrupting military pursuit in Iraq that will never succeed, is there any question that regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, we need to do our part to elect a Democrat and put an end to the fascist repugnican agenda?

 

[brant_ix]

Hey Guys!! Be Wary of This!!!

We have to be REALLY Careful with letters like these.

Reason being, it probably wasn't Obama that sent out these letters... they were probably sent from the Republican side!!

4 years ago, Karl Rove and the Bush Campaign made proactive phonecalls posing as John Kerry Campaign promoters in order to polarize and energize the Conservative Voters to vote at the polls. The phone calls would say that John Kerry, coming from Massachusetts was in favor of Gay Marriage and was going to establish it as a law. He never publically stated this... and it caused a big commotion and may very well have cost Kerry the election. This COULD be a similar ploy...

1 Example Article below:

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/...ers.Kerry.Supports.Gay.Marriage-1426395.shtml

 

[panthera]

OK, let's be wary

I can't find any dissent or statements disavowing the letter. Brent, have you tried talking to the Obama folks in your area?
I should think, 24 hours on, if it were false, we would have heard.
If it is false, then the Republicans or christianists (there is a difference) have certainly become subtle.

 

[oxydolfan1]

"Doesn't Obama think bringing Bin Laden to justice is important to our national security??"

I don't know about Obama, but I believe the so-called "Islamofascist" threat is wildly overstated and misunderstood, not to mention a useful (and ruiniously expensive) way to prop up the military-industrial complex this nation is now built upon,, much to our detriment.

This spirit of fear is used to keep us in line, respectful and compliant to our true enemy at home, America's greatest threat from within, the same bullies and the same lessons we should have learned from as children.

I would rather be killed by a bomb blast then be saved by torture.

"Hillary's big mistake is she viewed herself, as did her campaign, as inevitable."

I agree, and what a God-awful campaign...

She tried to use Bill's message and rockstar persona without realizing that, as many Americans liked Bill, the Clinton presidency had its own pitfalls that, on reflection, led us to the nightmare that soon followed. I can't blame people for looking for an alternative to the same old, same old...

On the other hand, does Obama really represent that, after the smoke and mirrors clear and the complexities of the issues assert themselves? I've been impressed by Obama's recent statements and performances in the latest debates, but these are ultimately just performances. I no longer see him as utterly devoid of substance as I did a month ago, but his overriding message of "reaching across the aisle" is far too reminiscent of Pelosi's and Reid's policies of appeasement and capitulation.

What to do? I actually decided to vote Clinton in the primary on Super Tuesday because I didn't want the state to go for Obama, but I'm not sure I shouldn't have abstained after all, given some of Hillary's disappointing statements and tactics since then. Despite my reservations, I might vote Obama in the general if the election is close, just to vote against McCain and not feel so helpless about doing my best to keep them out, but am I not setting myself up for buyer's remorse myself?

So, you see, a lot of my own ego is wrapped up in this myself.

"Prediction for 2008? John McCain will be elected the 44th President of the United States."

Yeah, I think so too...but I also think the vice-presidential choices may have more of an effect than anyone realizes.

Very good thread, panthera. Thanks, everybody! You've all given me a lot to think about...

Apologies for the double post above.

 

[panthera]

Well, it has been up

on his official Website's blogs and fora for over 24 hours now. I would think that they would have noticed and pulled it if it weren't genuine...see link below.
Google is returning over 800,000 hits on the two open letters (the first was on that McClurkin or what ever that monster is named) but I can't find any retractions.
Again, before we discount it as fake, has anyone in the US talked to the Obama folks?

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS/group_list

 

[andrewinorlando]

I do think that John McCain is going to pull it off. Hillary has run a dreadful campaign, and who really knows if Obama can win against McCain....I don't think he can. Quite honestly, riding the coattails of her husband (or anyone else, for that matter) is a foolish campaign strategy. Yeah, Bill did some great things that he can be very proud of. But if anyone doubts for a second that his moral shortcomings are not responsible for what we have running this country today, they're dead wrong. That same "change of pace" that people sought when electing this idiot in 2000, is the same change of pace people are looking for today, as they try to get this idiot out of the white house and move someone in who is actually competent. While I don't doubt Hillary can do the job, and probably do it well (??), she has derailed her own campaign, showing herself all too often to be a true politician. It's really a shame, because it would certainly be a major change of pace to elect a qualified woman to the white house. I just don't hold out ANY hope that gay people will benefit at all from the election of ANY of these candidates...it's all talk and rhetoric, just like we got from Bill Clinton. Defense of Marriage Act my ass!!

 

[petek]

Here's my take on who I would vote for if I was in the US. It would be for Obama. I would NEVER vote for Hilary Clinton after her support for an illegal war in Iraq. That was such a major mistake in both terms of cost and livves, by someone you think would have known better how on earth so many people can either give her a pass on it or discount it is unbelievable. She can promise all the universal healthcare she wants now but it would never erase that gaffe in my mind always wondering what she might do the next time something as dire comes up.
Now she's railing about NAFTA (so is Obama) but she was for it when Bill was president and it came into being. Besides that she's pandering to "fears" again. What does she think Canada is going to do if she wants to reopen NAFTA when Canada is the USA's largest source of energy. NAFTA guarantees that America and Americans get Canadas oil and natural gas at fair prices to what Canadians pay and can't be cut off from the supply if shortages exist elsewhere in the world.

 

[~sudsshane]

PeteK~

Let's clarify something here. When Obama said he opposed the Iraq War, he wasn't even elected to Congress yet. He had no access to Intelligence reports from the CIA, which Congress and The White House did. The reports from the CIA claimed that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. I also now believe the Bush Administration manipulated those reports and lied to Congress. So what was Hillary Clinton supposed to do? We all wanted to believe in our President in the aftermath of 9/11. Most Americans also believed those reports and supported the war initially. Don't get me wrong, this war was not worth it. It was not worth the billions of dollars spent and the thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost. I think it is easy to cast blame on the Senators who voted for the War. The question is not what we shouldn't have done, but what we will do now? How will we ensure Iraq becomes a democracy and our men and women return home safely? I think an immediate pullout is not the way to go.

As for Obama claiming the "holier than thou high road", if you research his voting record on funding the Iraq War,his voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton's.

Obama beleives his own hot air and rhetoric. I hope Americans wake up before it is too late.

 

[~sudsshane]

also..

as far as NAFTA is concerned, Canada benefits greatly from free trade with the US, as does Mexico. NAFTA is a double edged sword in my opinion and needs to be renegotiated.

 

[rp2813]

Shane, your posts have really nailed it. I've been saying since 2004 that the 2008 election is the Democrats' to lose and they appear to be doing a great job of possibly pulling it off and giving us at least four more years of OUR money being feverishly crammed down the Iraqi rathole and also into the pockets of oil producers and refiners.

There was an article in the LA Times recently about how Jeb Bush was supposed to be the one who ended up in the White House, not W. It went into some detail about how W has always been the screw-up kid obsessed over receiving recognition from his dad. For those who still need to be hit over the head with it, that should explain why he went after Saddam. The writer also advised that both mom and pop Bush were quite dismayed when W won his first elective office. So what we're seeing is "East of Eden" being played out at the expense of our economy and national security.

As much as I want a Democrat in there next year, ANY regime change, even if it's McCain, will be more competent and I dare say less corrupt than that of Bush II, clearly the runaway winner for the title of absolute worst president in U.S. history.

 

[gyrafoam]

Yea Shane!

You go!

And I agree that Hillary was also one of many victims fed erroneous information from our intelligence gathering community at the direction of the Bush Administration. So she had no other information to go on. Also, Hillary, unlike her husband, is a military "Hawk" to begin with, so she would naturally lean towards a tougher stance when dealing with threats to our national security.

Now this Bin Laden stuff bothers me.

How can anyone think that the U.S. Government can EVER capture and prosecute Bin Laden?
If we did such a thing the whole world of Islam at large would come unglued.
So in my mind, if and when he is ever "captured" it will be Islamic's who nab him, possibly under direction of the White House or CIA. As long as they show his head being chopped-off and stuck on the ass-end of a pig, it matters not to me. (Do you suppose Al-Jazeera would have the genitalia to broadcast that----NOT!)

Do ya'll remember when McCain was this kind of free-spirited "maverick" that shot from the hip and spoke his mind?
Where is that guy?
He dissagreed with Bush in public almost two years ago, got a bad 'whippin from the GOP powers that be, and he has been goose-steppin' with the Bush brown-shirts, towing the "party-line" ever since.

Therefore:
How can we think that McCain will end up being anything other than an extension of the Bush Administration?

Just some thoughts to stir the pot a bit---------------

 

[petek]

The erroneous info wasn't all the info that was out there at the time that fateful decision was made. The UN inspectors had already been saying that they couldn't find any and with probably not much more time could have completed and wrapped it all up. But that wasn't good enough.

As for NAFTA. I'm no more expert on NAFTA than the vast majority of citzenry in the US, Canada or Mexico and believe me there are plenty of Canadians who want it scrapped as well because under NAFTA we have to pay supply and demand costs which include the US market. If the US opts out of NAFTA and the demand drops, we can sell all that oil and natural gas worldwide at world prices and not keep the domestic price artificially high like we do now under NAFTA.By not knowing what the real benefits of NAFTA are to Americans it's complete and utter foolishness to make a decision without the facts and both Hilary and Obama are cherry picking only some of the negatives and lying by omission the benefits. Most Americans have no clue where there energy comes from other than thinking from the middle east which isn't true. The biggest percentage of energy imp9orts to the USA come from Canada and a big chunk of oil also from Mexico. If the USA opted out of NAFTA you would end up paying world prices and have absolutely no guarantee of supply which you do now. How's that gonna sit with the crowd in Peoria when their home heating bill exceeds their mortgage and gasoline prices skyrocket much higher. By about 2030 or so oil exports from Canada to the US are projected to exceed all middle east oil. Be very careful what you wish for.

Just how important is all this oil etc.. Well there has been a dispute going on between Canada and the USA for years and years on softwood lumber exports from Canada into the USA..The USA went ahead and put duties on all imported Canadian wood products against NAFTA rules. The WTO ruled against the USA saying they were illegal but the USA wouldn't remove them. Well about a year ago the Chinese government came sniffing around Canada looking to buy into the biggest nickel mining company and were also sniffing around the Alberta oil scene. Before their plane to leave had barely got out of sight the illustrious Dick Cheney was in his plane heading up to Canada for probably the first time, check in hand, and ended the softwood trade dispute finally and paying back the billions of dollars the US govt had collected over all the years. So for someone like Hilary and Obama to just be running from town to town saying they are going to opt out or re-open negotiations people better be asking some tough questions as to what they stand to lose.

 

[petek]

One of the other anti-Nafta campaigners, I can't remember which one it was now had the most idiotic, written for morons radio blurb awhile back. He was railing again this so called NAFTA super-hiway that is proposed to be built between Mexico thru the US up to Canada. Basically all he was saying to the morons was to scrap NAFTA because they're gonna build this big humongous hiway and people are going to lose their land? As if no one ever loses or has lost their land for every inch of Interstate built or being built over the last 50 years? Besides the proposed super-highway isn't a single dedicated all by itself freeway, it's part and parcel of the current interstate system using current portions already in existance and new parts added on where needed for a more direct approach, nothing that the US probably wouldn't be building some time in the future anyways..but tag NAFTA to it and suddenly it's a huge bogeyman. And to top if off if it is being built to expedite traffic between Canada and the US under NAFTA then both Canada and Mexico will probably be paying for some of the construction costs as well.