For obvious reasons, a lot is riding on the primary today, though I wouldn’t say it’s all over after today, because god knows Clinton and Obama could come out neck and neck, and this could all continue on. But I want to make the case for Obama.
Considering that the two candidates have pretty much identical policy platforms, with each moving to the left a little on this issue or that to compensate where they’re to the right of the other candidate, it’s hard to say if there’s a single issue worth singling out, though the war is close to it. Obama is more dovish than Clinton, which is the main reason I went for Obama in the first place, especially since the health care plan is going to be written by Congress anyway. But since they are nearly identical, I think—and have said before—that it’s wise to cast your vote based on campaign strategies and sculpting the party how we want to see it in the future. Nominating Obama would send the signal to the party that we’re tired of the DLC, tired of the “move to the middle” strategy. It’s robbing the party of an identity, and it doesn’t win elections. Carter was something of a “middlist” since he had the religion thing, but he had the Watergate advantage. Since then, it’s been a loser. Clinton only scratched out victories because Perot was a spoiler. Gore was perceived as being to the left of Clinton because of the environmentalism, which meant he did better votes-wise, but it was still a squeaker that allowed the election to be stolen because his “move to the middle” campaign strategy caused the left to abandon him in disgust and vote for Nader. There’s also reason t believe the more swing voters would vote for an openly liberal candidate—some of them voted for Bush because they thought “compassionate conservative” was code for “liberal Republican”.
Obama initially started off with the “move to the middle” strategy, and there’s no doubt he does what politicians do and panders at times, but the force of enthusiasm behind him has given him the appearance of a grassroots candidate, and he has wisely embraced this, becoming more and more what people want him to be. Should he win the nomination, that would be a strong blow against the DLC, the “move to the middle” politics, and the Republican glad-handing that Clinton engages in. Like the Howard Dean campaign, it would tell the party that the people mean business. It’s easy to be cynical and say they ignore us completely, but look, Dean became the head of the party. And I don’t like everything he does, but he has answered the call for electing more Democrats in smaller offices, so already the people have had a good effect. And a campaign that looks liberal is just going to be more effective than one that looks like it’s skittish; people like to vote for someone with convictions, and like it or not, Obama looks like a man of conviction to your average voter. He speaks with confidence and authority.
A vote for Obama is a vote for small donors, against the evil cadre of Clinton consultants, and for a figure with enough charisma that he could be the Reagan for the surge of liberalism that the internet has harnessed in the way the Moral Majority harnessed reactionary sentiment in the 70s.
128 Responses to “Pennsylvania voters: Vote Obama”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wow. I can’t believe Obama is viewed as anything other than the move-to-the-middle candidate. It’s sad that the only arguments being made for him are based on personality and aura and not policy.
Wow. I can’t believe Obama is viewed as anything other than the move-to-the-middle candidate. It’s sad that the only arguments being made for him are based on personality and aura and not policy.
Done!
No line at 9 am. A bit disappointing.
“Clinton only scratched out victories because Perot was a spoiler.”
http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
I’m sorry, but even if I could vote, I would not vote for Obama because of, well, an actual issue … after his homophobic responses in the Advocate magazine, my support goes to Clinton.
I know that’s largely academic, but I was really on the fence between the two till he gave that interview, possibly even leaning his way. Not anymore. I, of course, can’t vote in this country despite living here because I don’t have citizenship, and similarly of course, I shouldn’t be able to.
But, if I were in PA, and able to vote, my vote would go to Clinton. Because my life as gay is on the line here.
I already voted for Obama (in Illinois) but I would have changed it to Clinton if the Advocate interview had come before our primary. I was very very disappointed in it…
or rather, in him (Obama)…
Well, I’m in PA. And I voted for Hillary.
I’m 26, which “should” make me an Obama girl - but I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with being a centrist. I think some moderation and pragmatism is a mark of common sense, not a lack of idealism.
Are people Crazy? Clinton just did two interviews where she declares she will use nuclear strike to “obliterate” Iran. This is not just “slightly” more hawkish. This is Batshit crazy, neocon style.
On top of that she will extent US military as ‘umbrella’ to defend every middle east countries including Israel.
to recap:
- she just declares war against Iran
- she tied US military strategy to that of Israel vs. Iran conflict.
- She plans to nuke Iran (Nice radioactive oil Hill,. Are you planning $10/gal. gas?)
- She just push Iran into SCO. And declaring cold war against China and Russia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbZ7qMGyEtI
Well what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be it’s continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times, we used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world, and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves. In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, ‘No, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.’ It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one, some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs. I don’t buy that, but I think we have to test it. And one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going to permit them, if we can prevent it, from becoming a nuclear power, but were they to become so, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening, and that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella.”
Obama Talks All Things LGBT With The Advocate. (note that Hillary has NOT conduct a single lengthy interview with LGBT outlet. not one!)
http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid53285.asp
There’s plenty of homophobia to go around, but you have a unique perspective into the African-American community. Is there a…
I don’t think it’s worse than in the white community. I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities.
Do you think there’s a specific prescriptive, which is not to say that there’s more homophobia in the African-American community. But is there a different answer to…
Well, I think what’s important is to have some of that church leadership speak up and change its attitudes, because I think a lot of its members are taking cues from that leadership.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290003
On the Townhall.com blog Musclehead Revolution, syndicated radio host Kevin McCullough posted a February 28 entry about Sen. Barack Obama’s statement on “bring[ing] about real change for all LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual] Americans” under the headline “Obama: Hey Homos, I’m Your Dude!” Below the headline, McCullough posted part of a photograph of Obama posted on the Drudge Report, in which he is dressed in the traditional attire of a tribal elder when he was visiting Kenya in August 2006 and captioned it, ” ‘By the way, when we’re done here, I’m going to repeal the Defense of Marriage.’ ” In his LGBT statement, Obama said, “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.”
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5209
Houston GLBT Caucus Endorses Obama
Despite overwhelming schedules, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama had the humility to answer all of our tough questions, fulfilling the same process that every candidate, from precinct chair to U.S. Senator, had to complete in order to secure our endorsement. After engaging in these historic conversations, the Houston GLBT Political Caucus board has voted to endorse Barack Obama:
• Focused on Victory: Through our presidential screening process, Barack Obama and his campaign demonstrated that he’s a strong campaigner with a compelling message and superior organization. As with every primary election, the Houston GLBT Political Caucus is intensely focused on victory. Our goal is to enact specific policies that include employment non-discrimination, judicial fairness for LGBT families, and marriage equality. We stand with Barack Obama because we feel he is best positioned to enable us to achieve these goals. We are confident in his ability to win the general election. The Caucus has endorsed over 40 progressive candidates in Harris County, and we believe that Barack Obama’s nomination will help us win these crucial local races.
• Joining a Historic Coalition: The LGBT craves unity with our neighbors. Barack Obama has inspired young people all over this country, and we want to stand with next generation. Barack Obama has reached out to rural voters better than any progressive candidate in recent memory, and we are deeply gratified to finally join hands with our heart-land neighbors. Barack Obama has become the voice for immigrants, people of all races, workers, farmers, and the creative-class. From H.I.V. /AIDs to worker’s rights, the LGBT community shares the needs and issues of minorities, people from every corner of this nation, and we trust Obama will deliver the change we all need.
Where is Hillary’s stuff? hello? can somebody show me that?
————-
Obama had ads in both TX and OH gay papers
www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid52408.asp
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003785226
Obama explains to Advocate why he is the best candidate for LGBT Americans
www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp
Senator Barack Obama, a 2008 presidential candidate, recently granted an exclusive interview with PULSE, a magazine produced by Gay Men of African Descent (GMAD), a New York-based social service and advocacy agency.
http://adhc.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/obama-in-exclusive-interview-with-black-gay-magazine/
Barack Obama’s Campaign Names His Gay/Lesbian Supporters
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/04/barack_obama_ca.html
Obama LGBT
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT Community
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/open_letter_from_barack_obama_to_the_lgb.php
A thin case, Amanda. Voters can disagree about how much to favor a candidate for being a feminist woman, or how revolted to feel about “periodically … feeling down” (which cost Obama my own vote, while probably gaining him two or three others) but not about who is the more homophobic of the two Democrats. Which you had to go out of your way not to count.
I despise the DLC as much as anyone, but is its approach to elections really a loser? Compared to what? And I too am grateful that Howard Dean has “answered the call” by focusing on local races–but that’s not as impressive as, you know, winning something.
Obama starts talking to LGBT a year ago! when Hillary was still being “inevitable” , I am your center right candidate. (He was in shitty position and can’t afford talking about gay stuff in 2007!)
This on top of major speech he gaves in Texas on gay issues. in public! (again people show me Hillary campaign speech on gay issue. nevermind cat fight who gets exlusive interview in philly market.)
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=10906
Guest Commentary
A call for full equality
by Sen. Barack Obama
Published Thursday, 08-Nov-2007 in issue 1037
ver the last several weeks, the question of GLBT equality was placed on center stage by the appearance of Donnie McClurkin at one of my campaign events. McClurkin is a talented performer and a beloved figure among many African Americans and Christians around the country. At the same time, he espouses beliefs about homosexuality that I completely reject.
The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America’s divisions on gay rights and my own deep commitment to GLBT equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.
We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it. To achieve that goal, we must state our beliefs boldly, bring the message of equality to audiences that have not yet accepted it, and listen to what those audiences have to say in return.
Obama’s Campaign Reaches Out to LGBT Community with Ad Buys in Texas, Ohio
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/78162/
February 28, 2008.
(UPDATE: The Obama campaign has released another open letter to the LGBT community. It went up first on The Bilerico Project. The text is below the fold.)
The Advocate reports that Obama’s not taking any votes for granted as the campaign launched a targeted ad buy courting the LGBT communities in Ohio and Texas.
Full-page ads will appear starting this Friday in Outlook Weekly of Columbus, the Gay People’s Chronicle of Cleveland, the Dallas Voice, and OutSmart, which is Houston-based. Buying afull-page, four-color ad that appears one time typically costs anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000 in weekly publications. In the Gay People’s Chronicle, for instance, the ad cost about $850, according to the paper’s advertising manager;the same ad went for about $1,500 in the Dallas Voice.
According to Eric Stern (member of Obam
Gobama?
*clench*
Will do! This is the first presidential election in which I can vote, and I’m quite pleased to have the opportunity for my first vote to be for someone like Obama. Weirdly excited.
The only thing worse than single issue voters are ill-informed single issue voters.
Hillary is not only hell bent on continuing the war, but is still in favor of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. No candidate is going to pass the LGBT sniff test completely. It’s a sad fact but there it is. This issue has no traction for the election, which is going to be all about the war and the economy. Those are the issues to look at when picking a candidate, not some hobby horse that is in Senate stale mate.
Sarah in Chicago April 22, 2008 at 9:18 am
I’m sorry, but even if I could vote, I would not vote for Obama because of, well, an actual issue … after his homophobic responses in the Advocate magazine, my support goes to Clinton.
so you are saying, you like the people who gives us “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and Federal Marriage Amendment 2004?
w000t…?
At what point, in your opinion, did he _stop_ the “move to the middle strategy”? I’m not sure he has.
I voted for Obama largely based on the fact that he knows to keep the O’Hanlon/Pollack crew the hell away from the levers of power. It’s true that his campaign feels a bit like a movement, in that people get energized (for better and worse) and want to get involved. But I really, truly think he’s a technocrat and an incrementalist rather than a progressive or a shaker of the status quo.
http://gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19249408&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8
Gay City News
New York City
Thursday, January 31, 2008
ENDORSEMENT: Obama
What We Can Do For Our Country
By: GAY CITY NEWS
What’s the issue with the Advocate interview? I just skimmed through it, and my impression was just that he was as usual awful frank for a politician and slightly better than Clinton on wanting to repeal DOMA.
……ahahahahahahaaaaa……
Philadelphia Gay News publisher is Hillary supporter!!!! (busted)
http://www.queerty.com/obama-blasting-publisher-gave-hillary-grand-20080405/
Segal - who did the Clinton interview and also penned an exhaustive editorial bashing Obama - failed to disclose that he donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign back in March of 2007.
That would have made for a good front page.
Aman April 22, 2008 at 11:10 am
What’s the issue with the Advocate interview? I just skimmed through it, and my impression was just that he was as usual awful frank for a politician and slightly better than Clinton on wanting to repeal DOMA.
there is no issue, that was just a Clinton campaign mop up job… (pandagon is on watch list.)
k. be back later for more talk… finger is getting tired.
The DLC approach is “Republican-lite”, i.e. implicitly accept the right-wing frame and move to the far right and call it the center. I’m sure there are excellent analyses out there of various races lost by this strategy, but I want to focus instead on the other side of the coin: if the DLC approach is actually the best available strategy compared to the existing alternatives (notably Dean’s 50 State Strategy and Obama’s Audacity of Hope campaign), to me that implies that America is not in fact a liberal country today and will elect no one publicly to the left of Bill Clinton circa 1996.
It sounds to me like saying that the American majority really doesn’t want government-supported universal health care, or a higher minimum wage, or the reduction of “free trade” that translates to offshored jobs. I don’t believe that to be true though; America has a long tradition of very left-leaning tendencies. Even Nixon had universal health care as a campaign plank.
I sincerely hope that the Reagan Revolution was an aberration fueled by a combination of unique historical circumstances: the Baby Boomers as a whole reaching their peak income years of ages 30-55, the defection of the Dixiecrats to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act, the religious backlash to Roe v Wade, and the loss of the Vietnam War. Notice that every one of the events above has a particular GOP support group associated with it: libertarians, racists, conservative Christians, and war hawks. The GOP formed their coalition out of people who largely felt wronged by the world. It’s taken time, but the world has moved on and the GOP narrative has failed to account for it. Libertarian policies have failed to expand the American Dream to the bottom 60% of the population; blatant racism is no longer politically acceptable in public and the Dixiecrats are dying off en masse; a backlash has begun against the Robertsons and Falwells from both non-Christians who want secular tolerance restored and Christians who feel used by the GOP; the failed Iraq invasion has shown many war hawks that hearts and minds really are more important than military supremacy.
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I’ve had many conversations over the last few years in which people I would normally expect to vote straight-ticket GOP no longer talk they would do so again; they say that something has opened their eyes to how out of touch the politicians are with “the real world”. And in those conversations I hear many ideas that sound like the party of FDR and LBJ would be very welcome again.
Obama also went to MLK’s church and spoke out against the black community’s homophobia. Has Hillary ever shown that kind of political courage.
http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-addresses-homophobia-anti-semitism-and-xenophobia-among-black-americans
Obama Addresses Homophobia, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia Among Black Americans
” And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.”
————
just so you know. Hillary HAS NOT MADE a single public campaign speech addressing LGBT issue in large and direct manner! NONE.
Yeah, Philadelphia Gay News is a Hillary supporter, because she gave an extensive interview while Obama and McCain both declined to be interviewed.
Obama speaking on LGBT issues …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4GyMoqC2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7qhGvykiQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZPxCotpqLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfHQB8VRUA
Blue Jean April 22, 2008 at 11:27 am
Yeah, Philadelphia Gay News is a Hillary supporter, because she gave an extensive interview while Obama and McCain both declined to be interviewed.
because Obama has exclusive interview with the ‘Advocate’? a much bigger circulation and much more authoritative outlet?
where is Hillary’s Advocate interview? (oh that’s right, she only does gay stuff in obscure publication so nobody can see it.)
want to compare circulation and visibility count?
(again, you are NOT going to win, because Hillary NEVER does public campaign speech on LGBT!!! think about that!)
In 1994, the DNC was headed by Terry McAuliffe, a DLC lovechild. Congress was taken over by the Republicans. And they kept it all the way until 2006, when the Howard Dean led DNC took back Congress from the Republicans.
Yes, the DLC approach is a loser. It might have given us the White House twice in the 1990s, but it was at the expense of both houses of Congress, as well as the majority of a state houses and governorships in America.
I would say the strong gains made by Howard Dean in the Dems sweeping victories in the 2006 midterms counts as “winning something”.
God I hope Obama pulls out a miracle and wins today so we can just be done with this silliness. And rest assured, an Obama victory in PA will be the end of the Democratic Nomination race.
Below is a form letter you can email:
————————
TO: Mark Segal - mark@epgn.com
CC: Sue O”Connell - soconnell@baywindows.com
Dear Mr. Segal and Ms. O”Connell:
I am writing regarding your recent editorial in the The Philadelphia Gay News in which you stated “It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community.”
Here are the facts:
Obama spoke *with* the LGBT community in late October 2007. He provided an exclusive interview to the gay publication The Advocate - a gay publication that has a much large circulation than The Philadelphia Gay News. That article is at http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp as you can see plainly.
Since your charge against Obama is patently false, and since even a cursory amount of research would have easily produced the same article to which I have just pointed you, I am requesting you issue a major retraction of the statement or else face an organized boycott against your paper and all those issued by its parent company.
Obama does seem to brush women’s issues like abortion under the rug though.
She has a whole page devote to it and as for him you have to go under healthcare all the way at the bottom. That doesn’t sit right with me.
Hillary’s Page
h Obama’s Page
Plus it’s only a little afternoon. It’s always interesting how they say who is winning so early. No one I know has even voted yet. I am doing so before my class today and I am voting for Hillary.
The day before the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, Senator Barack Obama delivers a speech to the congregation of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. January 20, 2008
YouTube 34mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris
(where is Hillary’s public speech Clinton supporters? Show us.)
Obama does seem to brush women’s issues like abortion under the rug though.
She has a whole page devote to it and as for him you have to go under healthcare all the way at the bottom. That doesn’t sit right with me.
Hillary’s Page
h Obama’s Page
Plus it’s only a little afternoon. It’s always interesting how they say who is winning so early. No one I know has even voted yet. I am doing so before my class today and I am voting for Hillary.
Obama does seem to brush women’s issues like abortion under the rug though.
She has a whole page devote to it and as for him you have to go under healthcare all the way at the bottom. That doesn’t sit right with me.
Hillary’s Page
h Obama’s Page
Plus it’s only a little afternoon. It’s always interesting how they say who is winning so early. No one I know has even voted yet. I am doing so before my class today and I am voting for Hillary.
Obama does seem to brush women’s issues like abortion under the rug though.
She has a whole page devote to it and as for him you have to go under healthcare all the way at the bottom. That doesn’t sit right with me.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Plus it’s only a little afternoon. It’s always interesting how they say who is winning so early. No one I know has even voted yet. I am doing so before my class today and I am voting for Hillary.
list of LGBT Obama supporter. (can’t find one for Hillary. …again… where is hers?)
http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid52635.asp
———
ok. In summary:
1. Hillary supporter can’t show jack.
2. Hers is pretty much ‘check box’ pandering. Not pro-active. (small, friendly publication, boiler plate list)
3. Obama gave MUCH larger speeches in places that will potentially risk his candidacy by talking about LGBT. (To AA community in church.)
Wow, Squashed, 14 comments and still going!
Congratulation HILLARY, when can we bomb Iran? I need that $10/gallon gas.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc_15
Oil rallies $2 to near $120 on supply worries
U.S. crude rose $1.90 to $119.38 a barrel by 12:18 p.m. EDT (1618 GMT) after hitting an all-time peak of $119.74 earlier. London Brent crude gained $1.80 to trade at $116.23 a barrel, after rising to a record peak of $116.75.
Oil’s fresh highs have extended a rally that has seen prices climb more than five-fold since 2002, driven by booming demand from emerging markets such as China that has coincided with long-term supply constraints.
The slumping U.S. greenback, which tumbled to fresh lows against the euro on Tuesday, has also helped boost dollar-denominated commodities like oil and attracted speculative inflows from hedge funds.
Hillary dramatically rewrites US nuclear weapons policy in the Middle East, then her staff says “never mind”
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillary-dramatically-rewrites-us.html
In the past week, Hillary has dramatically altered US policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Specifically, Hillary is saying that she would launch a nuclear strike on Iran if they launched a nuclear strike on Israel. She is also saying that she wants to extend the US nuclear umbrella beyond Israel, and include other US allies in the Middle East (i.e., we would nuke Iran if they nuked these US allies).
That’s a huge, and newsworthy, change in US policy. First, we don’t admit publicly when and if we are going to use nukes. Hillary just did. That’s big news. Second, defense experts I talk to say that we have never said publicly that we would use nukes to defend Israel (even though this might be assumed, it’s different when you confirm it publicly). Third, we have never before said that we would extend the US nuclear umbrella to defend other countries in the Middle East. Again, Hillary just did.
Whether Hillary has adopted this major change in US nuclear policy simply to curry favor with voters in Pennsylvania is certainly worthy of discussion (one would hope that such policy is made to advance US national security and not to simply win votes). But there is something even more newsworthy to this story. Hillary’s staff twice, yesterday, told the media that Hillary didn’t say what she said. Top Clinton staffer Howard Wolfson said last night that Hillary did not mean to say that she’d use nukes against Iran. And then a second Clinton staffer told CNN that she did not mean to suggest that she would extend the US nuclear umbrella to other countries in the Middle East. Only problem? She did, repeatedly.
If anyone would like to read something other than squashed’s spam, Kate Harding at Shakesville outlines excellent reasons to vote for Hillary, if you are so inclined.
Sparkliesunshine April 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Obama does seem to brush women’s issues like abortion under the rug though. She has a whole page devote to it and as for him you have to go under healthcare all the way at the bottom. That doesn’t sit right with me.
www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/
www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Plus it’s only a little afternoon. It’s always interesting how they say who is winning so early. No one I know has even voted yet. I am doing so before my class today and I am voting for Hillary.
Did you actually READ hillary’s page? (ie. there is NOTHING in it except bunch of line item stuff. the Beijing speech, boiler plate non discrimination and healthcare items. (WHERE IS THE WOMAN issues in there????)
Reproductive issue?
RKMK April 22, 2008 at 12:29 pm
If anyone would like to read something other than squashed’s spam, Kate Harding at Shakesville outlines excellent reasons to vote for Hillary, if you are so inclined.
4) Because you don’t buy that the candidates will be significantly different on foreign policy.
7) Because she’s a woman.
Is that even pass the giggle test?
I got all day. try me.
Just in case we needed any reminders about Hillary Clinton’s chickenhawk tendencies, she said she’s willing to obliterate Iran.
First she votes for Bush Inc.’s war in Iraq. Then she votes for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Now she’s talking about obliterating a nation of 70 million people.
Hillary Clinton in Republican lite.
Barack Obama is an imperfect candidate, but he is the candidate who was wise enough to see what was coming with an Iraq occupation and brave enough to speak out about it. He is the candidate who has built a grassroots support system, and he is the candidate who is committed to a 50-state strategy for the Democrats. He is the candidate who can motivate the progressive base, and that progressive base can push real change.
He is not perfect, but damn! He is the first candidate I have ever *enthusiastically* supported. This election is the first time in my life I’ve ever felt like I was voting for something instead of against something.
Sparkliesunshine April 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Obama does seem to brush women’s issues like abortion under the rug though. She has a whole page devote to it and as for him you have to go under healthcare all the way at the bottom. That doesn’t sit right with me.
www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/
www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Plus it’s only a little afternoon. It’s always interesting how they say who is winning so early. No one I know has even voted yet. I am doing so before my class today and I am voting for Hillary.
Did you actually READ hillary’s page? (ie. there is NOTHING in it except bunch of line item stuff. the Beijing speech, boiler plate non discrimination and healthcare items. (WHERE IS THE WOMAN issues in there????)
Reproductive issue? (– shall we start the whole thing again? hillary lies?)
Family and Medical Leave Act ( — she got COUGHT LYING!!! (that was not her initiative))
This was outted the same time as her Tuzla snipper fire lies.
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/hillarys-big-family-and-medica-1.php
http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/03/28/hillary-another-liethe-family-and-medical-leave-act/
Dana Goldstein of The American Prospect’s TAPPED , “uncovered” in the First Lady papers is that Hillary never held or attended any meetings on the Family Medical Leave Act, which was the first piece of legislation President Bill Clinton signed, 10 days after entering office. Having just written a piece about the FMLA for the upcoming print issue of the Prospect, I can tell you that anyone familiar with the law should have already realized Hillary’s very limited involvement. The non-profit organization the National Partnership for Women and Families originally drafted the bill, which was then championed in the House by former Colorado Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and in the Senate by Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy. These three were at work trying to pass the FMLA from the late-1980s on, while the Clintons were in Arkansas and running a national campaign. So while Hillary did indeed have a history of involvement with work-family issues, she couldn’t have possibly been a big player in the original Beltway push to pass the FMLA.
Is that even pass the giggle test? - squashed
I dunno, squash, is that even a grammatically correct sentence?
RKMK April 22, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Is that even pass the giggle test? - squashed
I dunno, squash, is that even a grammatically correct sentence?
I was giggling.
(I am pretty confidence I can call Kate Harding stupid and prove it. Like I say, I got all day. try me … You can call me stupid if you win.)
I am pretty confidence [sic] I can call Kate Harding stupid and prove it.
You’ll excuse me, squashed, but this assertion doesn’t pass my “giggle test.”
One thing that amazes me about Clinton supporters is that so many of them like the fact that she’s centrist. They have low expectations of her from the get-go and that makes their support more rational and right.
Sorry, but I’m voting for someone who has the potential to be better. Obama may screw over liberals, he may turn out to be a boring old centrist, but he might turn out better than that. Clinton simply will not. You know what you’re getting with her, and that doesn’t satisfy me. I’ve had it with being disappointed by people bearing the name “Clinton.”
I am still giggling,
(this is so cool. I have my own typo fixer. see how fancy it can get… Do Hillary supporters ever think about real issues, or do they just talk about who has the boobs, penis and make stuff up? This is amazing… )
You can call me stupid if you win
again, you are NOT going to win…
You’re the only one saying anything about winning. Guess what? Everybody with a vote has a right to use that vote however they want, and doesn’t have to justify it to you, no matter how much of a lather you can get yourself into. And everybody without a vote, well, I… um. I’m not sure why you’re wasting your energy.
DeNatured April 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You can call me stupid if you win
again, you are NOT going to win…
You’re the only one saying anything about winning. Guess what? Everybody with a vote has a right to use that vote however they want, and doesn’t have to justify it to you, no matter how much of a lather you can get yourself into. And everybody without a vote, well, I… um. I’m not sure why you’re wasting your energy.
the rule of winning in this is fairly simple:
a) if one can’t show with link about event/news/announcement. He is making stuff up. He losts. (as you notice, so far Hillary’s supporters are claiming bunch of stuff that can easily be refuted with simple link.)
b) if the number / logic doesn’t add up. Then one has the right to call the other guy “stupid” (hey, we all are college students here. little name calling and dorm room brawls won’t hurt.)
… The person with least amount of a and b wins.
So try to not make shit up Hillary supporters, keep it real and make it add up.
squashed…
As one Obama supporter speaking to another, can I ask you to do us all a favor and chill the fuck out?
You’ve posted 23 times in this thread - out of 51 TOTAL POSTS by all users.
Please put the Red Bull down and step away from the keyboard.
1) There are probably more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters here, so for the most part you are preaching to the choir (more like beating us over the head with a sledgehammer).
2) Nobody likes being condescended to, and the tone you take towards Hill’s supporters is getting pretty condescending. You’re being a dick. Wether you like it or not, we need most of Hillary’s supporters on our side in November, because Obama can’t win without them.
3) If I had to guess, 80-90% of the readers here no longer have a say in who the nominee is, as most of the country has already voted in the primaries.
Just take a breath or come up for air for minute, would ya?
Please put the Red Bull down and step away from the keyboard
Well said.
I cast my vote in PA this morning. There were lots of voters and a fine high mood. I think we can look forward to a record turnout!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4GyMoqC2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7qhGvykiQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZPxCotpqLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfHQB8VRUA
Again Hillary supporters….
SHOW ME, Hillary tackling difficult issues IN PUBLIC.
Hiding in friendly, small, supporter run publication is easy. But it won’t change a thing. There is no substance in that. That’s just check box pandering.
SHOW ME SUBSTANCE.
Jesus Motherfucking Peaches, squashed, do you have a job? I mean, I like to fuck around on blogs, but holy shit…
I wasn’t asking for a rundown of the rules, squashed. I was trying to tell you that nobody else is playing.
DTG in STL April 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm
2) Nobody likes being condescended to, and the tone you take towards Hill’s supporters is getting pretty condescending. You’re being a dick. Wether you like it or not, we need most of Hillary’s supporters on our side in November, because Obama can’t win without them.
This is fairly near the edge blog, most readers already know what to expect. (so the effect of being nasty can be calculated precisely and tracked across the internet. Who is reading and going to read this blog has been charted)
second, by now it’s not possible to deal with Hillary hardcore supporters in polite manner. The ones that can reason already pick and analyze issues carefully. We are now dealing with the dumber and lying segments. (hey, that’s me, being punk ass and as you can see, so far, all arguments are based on lies and easily refuted)
yes, the usual short essay, one post per person essay would be ideal. But there is no time to do it with speed … (you do see the need for counter spin right?)
DeNatured April 22, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I wasn’t asking for a rundown of the rules, squashed. I was trying to tell you that nobody else is playing.
nah, everybody is playing. give me another 2 hours. I can attrack Hillary base and pop all their arguments in one single thread. (it’s east coast lunch time.)
anyway, .. have an argument or are you specializing on meta?
At this point I am really surprised that other LGBT Americans think that Clinton is somehow better then Obama on gay issues. Obama worked to court the gay vote and speak out about gay issues in the last few months, including speaking out about gay rights to non-gay audiences, which is something I don’t think Clinton has ever done or at least done much of. I don’t really see the point of holding on to the McClurkin thing and unless I am forgetting something I don’t remember anything horrifyingly homophobic about his Advocate interview.
But mostly I do not understand the blind loyalty among many gay people for Clinton. Her husband courted our vote and then gave us DOMA and don’t ask, don’t tell. Is there anything about Clinton and her campaign that would lead someone to believe that she would not just abandon us at any moment for political expediency? Actually EVERYTHING about her campaign leads me to believe she would do just that. In contrast Obama is an imperfect candidate but a bit more of a clean slate.
I think Amanda made some great points for Obama but my number one concern for today is that Obama wins strongly enough to end Clinton’s campaign. At this point is pretty inevitable Obama is getting the nomination and Clinton’s campaign has become a disaster for our party. Her use of right wing talking points and tactics to sabotage Obama should not be tolerated. It’s time for an end to Clinton’s disastrous, divisive campaign.
Squashed, try Hillary ’s appearance on Ellen in which she says:
Obama has said that although he supports the repeal of DOMA, he feels that the states should be able to decide whether to accept same-sex marriage. in my book, that’s not LGBT friendly.
kate217 April 22, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Squashed, try Hillary ’s appearance on Ellen in which she says”
in a show where she talks 3 minutes about neck pillow? That’s the level of importance gay right is to you? She didn’t even made the main statement herself and made the host feed the line.
One speech, only last week? very heartfelt and world changing. I am touched. I am sure Ellen degeneres’ audiences are now changing their mind and more supportive about gay right … very brave of her. I am sure she was under snipper fire while driving to the studio.
I can’t wait to see more how Hillary defends the less privileged in society.
(come back if you are serious.)
kate217 -
I realize that Senator Obama won’t come out in support of same-sex marriage, which is unfortunate, but neither will Hillary Clinton.
It’s sad that both candidates won’t go as far as fully supporting same-sex marriage, but you can’t hold that agisnt one of them and give the other one a pass.
And while I realize DOMA might not have been created by Bill Clinton per se, he did sign it into law without utilizing his veto power, and Hillary didn’t say a word.
Hmmm Kate217…
I also saw that Ellen interview and thought it was pretty great. Every once in a while Clinton does or says something that makes me like her again but then she does something else to remind me why I no longer like her or trust her, like say Bittergate.
Both Clinton and Obama have promised to support a repeal of DOMA. But remember that DOMA happened under the Clinton’s watch after all. What has she done to truly differentiate herself from her husband, who also courted the gay vote and then threw us under the bus? Walking in a gay pride march and appearing on Ellen? Are we going to base her support for gay rights on these campaign tactics?
As far as Obama and his belief that states should decide about marriage, I am not so sure that is such a bad idea. Remember that Obama has also gone on record saying that he would push for national civil unions that would give LGBT all the rights of marriage, just not the name marriage. States would be free to decide on the name, not on the rights.
I actually think that is really smart move. More and more Americans are comfortable with the idea of civil unions but are not “ready” for gay marriage. In Obama’s plan, more progressive states could move toward gay marriage, in name and rights, while other states would be bound to give us our rights if not the name of marriage. Eventually these states could move towards full marriage. I think this could undercut the Republican strategy of using gay marriage as wedge issues while helping us move along to full equality. Its a clever and pragmatic approach in my opinion.
I reregistered as a Democrat just so I could vote against Hillary Clinton on my birthday. Come the morrow, I’ll switch back to the GOP.
My older daughter supports Mr Obama but, unfortunately, my wife and sister-in-law will be voting for the junior senator from New York. But, I’m happy to report that if Mr Obama wins the nomination, my sister-in-law will vote for John McCain in November.
She’s the most effective individual to deal with foreign affairs, which will be the most important issue of this race in the end. How can we fix our economy without better foreign relations? Clearly, we cannot. Globalization insists upon improved relations and returning the US to it’s pre-Bush standing.
This will be the fourth attempt for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race. He’s been incapable of doing so, which demonstrates his lack of feasibility as a candidate.
There are good reasons why the superdelegates should ignore the Obama Campaigns cries for all Superdelegates to swing for Obama and instead endorse Mrs Clinton. There’s no question that superdelegates will consider electability as a factor in deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton CAN beat McCain in November. Obama cannot if he is on the ticket as President. Him as VP is a different story: The Clintonista Post
Obama initially started off with the “move to the middle” strategy, and there’s no doubt he does what politicians do and panders at times
I note that you didn’t mention reproductive rights once in your post.
It’s an issue on which he has been either “moving to the middle” or “pandering,” given that he’s using anti-choice framing when he speaks about choice to Democratic audiences.
How does that fit in with your views?
Jesus keerist, how about a quota for commenters? Scrolling past le nincompoop above has given me mouse elbow.
Squashed, if you are so smart, how come you can’t string two grammatical sentences together?
One thing that amazes me about Clinton supporters is that so many of them like the fact that she’s centrist. They have low expectations of her from the get-go and that makes their support more rational and right.
Sorry, but I’m voting for someone who has the potential to be better. Obama may screw over liberals, he may turn out to be a boring old centrist, but he might turn out better than that. Clinton simply will not. You know what you’re getting with her, and that doesn’t satisfy me. I’ve had it with being disappointed by people bearing the name “Clinton.”
So, being a centrist means having “low expectations,” and that Obama means you want something “better?” Being a centrist means having respect for the opposition, and to truly desire bipartisanship. Diplomacy is about compromise, and progress comes from moderation. I’d rather take the slow, solid route that gets results than think that grand speeches and high-flying ideals alone will make change.
It’s one thing to talk, and it’s quite another to roll up your sleeves and do. I think Clinton is willing to get down in the trenches to fight for change - and believe me, you need to fight for it.
well this is easy.
———–
Hillary Clinton, NAFTA & Triangulation 2.0
huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-nafta-_b_71544.html
So my guess is that what’s going on is that she has told the lobbyists, corporate executives and other Big Money interests financing her presidential run that she’ll stay quiet in the lead up to the vote, so as to not change the dynamic of the vote in Congress by getting more Democrats to oppose the Peru deal. Then, when its clear the deal is going to sail through because folks like her haven’t stepped up and been leaders, she’ll quietly cast her vote against it, and then during select campaign appearances with select groups, she’ll brag about her supposed courage and pretend she took a strong stand for the middle class.
—————
Clinton adviser quits over China rhetoric
politico.com/news/stories/0408/9719.html
A top expert on China has resigned as an informal adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign in the wake of the candidate’s increasingly harsh anti-China rhetoric.
Richard Baum, a political science professor at the Center for Chinese Studies at UCLA, resigned in light of what he called “grossly misguided accusations” made by Clinton about China.
Threatening to get us into another unwinnable war (Iran) that nobody with a progressive bone in their body wants isn’t the kind of “effective dealing with foreign affairs” I want in the 44th POTUS.
If I wanted another hawk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, I would vote for John McCain.
Hillary Clinton supports the “freedom of faith” act that decrees that pharmacists don’t have to dispense birth control and police officers don’t have to guard abortion clinics if God tells them not to.
This whole Doug Coe “Family” business, which is sex-segregated, BTW, needs looking into.
Adam, at least she hasn’t shared the stage with Donnie McClurkin.
I’m on record for being against the government’s involvement in “marriage” at all. I firmly believe that all unions recognized by the state (regardless of the sex(es) of the participants) should be “civil unions.” Leave “marriage” to religious institutions, where they belong.
I think Clinton is willing to get down in the trenches to fight for change - and believe me, you need to fight for it.
The only time since 2000 Clinton has “gotten down in the trenches” is when her entitlement to be president was taken away.
Imagine if she had fought Bush on anything.
And before anyone says “Obama hasn’t fought for anything” remember that that’s not one of the few remaining arguments we’re clinging to.
How Hillary’s foreign policy doesn’t add up, upon coupling it with Israel strategic interest.
Kate Harding
I also think it’s slanderous horseshit to compare Clinton to Bush in any respect, but especially to claim she would “embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports” the way he has. Here’s Clinton herself, from her long essay in Foreign Affairs laying out her foreign policy vision:
Avoid false choices driven by ideology. The Bush administration has presented the American people with a series of false choices: force versus diplomacy, unilateralism versus multilateralism, hard power versus soft. Seeing these choices as mutually exclusive reflects an ideologically blinkered vision of the world that denies the United States the tools and the flexibility it needs to lead and succeed. There is a time for force and a time for diplomacy; when properly deployed, the two can reinforce each other. U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy.
shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/better-late-than-never-good-reasons-to.html
“For the moment, Iran seems to be dealing with a very, very strong hand,” Feldman said in an interview, citing high oil prices and new influence in the region. “If there weren’t these new considerations there would have been greater confidence in Israel that if all diplomacy failed that the United States would act militarily to stop Iran. There is a growing assessment in Israel that the United States might have no choice but to let this program go through.”
There is also a deepening suspicion that any Israeli military strike would only embolden the Iranians, while doing little to prevent the country from ultimately acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/24/israelis_strategize_amid_iran_threat/
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is on a speaking tour in the United States, putting her considerable personal charm in the service of a shrewd salesmanship - of a US war on Iran.
Although considered a dove by Israeli standards, Livni is now on a historic mission that has begun with a pre-travel warmer in the form of a highly publicized telephone call to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, assuring him that there is direct linkage “between Iran and the terror groups”.
atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC14Ak02.html
(Hillary’s TV interview. 4/21 ‘08)
In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, ‘No, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.’ It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one, some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs.
dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/214248/351/937/500454
(recent Iran centrifuge capability estimate)
There’s broad agreement that Iran has added at least two cascades, and that at least some of new machines are IR-2s. Interestingly, it also seems that IR-2 cascades house more machines than P-1 cascades. It’s not clear, however, whether the machines are in the PFEP or FEP and whether they are all IR-2s.
The PFEP was designed to accommodate six cascades of 164-machines. The Agency’s most recent report on Iran suggests that space for 2 cascades is occupied. One space is filled by a cascade of 164 P-1 machines and the other space is taken up by a single IR-2 machine and a 10-machine IR-2 cascade (where some small P-1 cascades used to be). Although the four spaces that remain were designed to accommodate 164 centrifuges, it presumably wouldn’t be too hard to fit 176 in—if you’re prepared to replumb.
armscontrolwonk.com/1845/300-ir-2s
As a lesbian, I find both of them pretty equal on LGBT issues– they both support LGBT rights but can’t use the “m” word– but I am continually bothered by the shameless nepotism that Hillary is benefitting from. Being the spouse of a president, even an active spouse, gives her a unique perspective but not actual presidential experience. There’s also the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton that just smacks of dynasty politics. I lived inside the beltway for 8+ years so I know a beltway mentality when I see it; Clinton has it, Obama doesn’t. We need someone who will really shake things up, who isn’t beholden to old-school alliances and supporers.
I saw Obama last night among a crowd of 10,000+. In his list of people-I-will-work-for-and-bring-together he actually included “gays and lesbians.” He also said that he is a threat to the status quo– to both the GOP AND the Dems– and that is why I’m supporting him.
You really don’t want to go there. What has Hillary done to knock Obama out of the race besides: 1) winning fewer states; 2) winning fewer pledged delegates; 3) winning fewer popular votes; 4) raising less money…?
Fewer people have supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy than have supported Barack Obama’s. What does that say about her feasibility as a candidate?
You assert that Obama is unelectable against McCain, with nothing to really back up that claim. I’ll counter that… if Clinton wins the nomination as you propose by superdelegate coup, she will be completely unelectable in November. The African-American and youth votes will both (very justifiably) feel robbed, and they won’t show up to the polls on November 4th. Without them, John McCain is the 44th President of the Unites States.
kate217 April 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Adam, at least she hasn’t shared the stage with Donnie McClurkin.
keep repeating that. I’ll keep reposting this
gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=10906
Guest Commentary
A call for full equality
by Sen. Barack Obama
Published Thursday, 08-Nov-2007 in issue 1037
ver the last several weeks, the question of GLBT equality was placed on center stage by the appearance of Donnie McClurkin at one of my campaign events. McClurkin is a talented performer and a beloved figure among many African Americans and Christians around the country. At the same time, he espouses beliefs about homosexuality that I completely reject.
The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America’s divisions on gay rights and my own deep commitment to GLBT equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.
We will not secure full equality for all GLBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it. To achieve that goal, we must state our beliefs boldly, bring the message of equality to audiences that have not yet accepted it, and listen to what those audiences have to say in return.
The “reagan Revolution” was no “abberation,” in the sense that it was part of a massive swing to the right. It was, like that entire swing, never so much a grass-roots phenomenon as a massively orchestrated power grab by the propertied classes, who were panicked by the potential of actual democracy manifested in the 1960s.
Bottom line-this right-wing backlash has never been able to persuade a solid and real majority to fully back its program, but it has been very good at discrediting potential opposition and stealing power on many fronts.
FWIW, I do think that it has fully bankrupted every pretense of representing actual majorities in this country, but unfortunately it has largely succeeded in making majorities irrelevant.
Kate217,
Squashed just posted Obama’s response to the McClurkin fiasco. It was a stupid mistake for his campaign. However I think his response was quite good even if it makes many of us in the gay community uncomfortable. We need to address homophobia head-on by confronting and sustaining a dialogue with people who have not come to understand and accept us. I think its much better strategy then just writing off certain people as intolerant.
I’m not saying that Obama is a bad candidate, or even that I’m a huge Hillary supporter, just that people of good conscience can disagree on this subject. As the Maryland primary was months ago, at this point I’m at the “I’ll be voting Democrat in November” stage. In the interest of full disclosure, I was an Edwards supporter. Although I’m more thrilled than I can say that the frontrunners are a woman and a racial minority, my political views were closer to that of the white man in this campaign.
You think that Obama’s response to the Donnie McClurkin episode is sufficient. I’m not buying it. It’s a free country; we’re allowed to disagree about that.
As far as the “difficult fact [that] [t]here are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community,” I don’t believe that those people should be given any slack. If those who didn’t believe in racial equality hadn’t been forced to accept integration and inter-racial marriage, we’d still have segregated schools and miscegenation laws. If those who believed in the inferiority of other races hadn’t been forced to accept emancipation, we’d still have legal slavery. I don’t believe in pandering to (let alone coddling) the willfully ignorant.
kate217 April 22, 2008 at 4:48 pm
You think that Obama’s response to the Donnie McClurkin episode is sufficient. I’m not buying it. It’s a free country; we’re allowed to disagree about that.
He gave series of speech, including big one at MLK church.
What exactly constitute sufficient? On his knee blowing somebody? There is political reality, how far he can push gay right issues. He admits openly, pushing “marriage” is not possible at this moment and instead he promised equal right via ‘civil union’ route.
Now both candidate said the same thing. Now you have to consider their political skill to push the legal move.
The question becomes: do you choose Hillary who thus far unable to go beyond the usual audiences who are already supporting the idea (not much), or Obama who braves speaking to larger audience often not friendly to LGBT issues to persuade acceptance?
Pick one.
(let’s ignore for a moment about lying and pandering habit.)
Kate217,
I also was an Edwards supported and both of the candidates were initially a step down for me. Personally I believe that Obama is a lot closer in values and positions to Edwards then Clinton. As I said before Clinton’s campaign has gone from bad to worse. I question her loyalty to her supporters and our party, really to anything but herself. As someone also noted above, her recent statement regarding obliterating Iran, would in my mind make it impossible for a progressive to get behind her.
But, yes, it certainly fair to disagree on the topic. Also I truly understand your feelings in not giving homophobes any slack. Its one that I share in my personal and daily life, its just not one that I believe is on a national level is going to solve any problems or work us out of the divisive bigotry that the Republicans have been stirring up for decades.
In November, the next time I am allowed to vote, I will definitely pick the one who wins the nomination. (As I clearly stated before.)
kate217 April 22, 2008 at 5:17 pm
In November, the next time I am allowed to vote, I will definitely pick the one who wins the nomination. (As I clearly stated before.)
not enough. if an issue concerns you, you have to analyze and speak out about it. (ok. not my loud mouth method, but definitely using blog)
The day of “la la la”… is over, because difficult issue does not have media channel. The media will not inform voters what happens, you have to make the argument yourself and go out there.
However I think his response was quite good even if it makes many of us in the gay community uncomfortable. We need to address homophobia head-on by confronting and sustaining a dialogue with people who have not come to understand and accept us. I think its much better strategy then just writing off certain people as intolerant.
i still don’t get how you have a “dialogue” on issues like this. i really don’t.
Who the fuck are you to tell me “not good enough?” You know absolutely nothing about me.
The Clintonista Post:
You’re obviously not a basketball fan. If I have more points than you when the final buzzer sounds, it doesn’t matter in the slightest if I couldn’t go on a big run to pull away.
Scoreboard.
kate217 April 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Who the fuck are you to tell me “not good enough?” You know absolutely nothing about me.
if you haven’t been watching what’s going on, who control the media content, what type of attack happens, who is pushing what, when and how much.
THEN YOU BETTER FUCKING WAKE UP.
For you to make the assumption that I’m not paying attention based on one conversation about one specific issue (and only one aspect of that one particular issue, at that) is shear hubris.
Bring on the rest of your “specific issue” . They better be more interesting than ONE PATHETIC link as supporting item.
I have all the time in the world. And you better be able to show it instead of just saying ‘yer presumptuous’.
I am calling you out.
Call away. I’m not your lap dog and I don’t have to come when you call.
squashed:
Seriously dude, your being a fucking asshole. Please knock it off.
To Hillary supporters… please understand that while we may not agree on who the best candidate is, we Obama supporters are not all overly zealous jerks like some others here.
Of course I’m sure somebody probably thinks I’m a jerk to, but I honestly try not to be, most of the time.
Folks, this is NOT the place to have a flame war. Calm the fuck down.
As for me, I voted early this morning. Outside my polling place was a guy from the Republican party trying to get defectors to sign back up again. Most of the people I saw were blatantly ignoring him, but he was so rude that I didn’t know who to feel sorry for.
I never intended to initiate a flame war. I (I thought) respectfully disagreed with a couple of other posters, one of whom doesn’t consider my viewpoint acceptable.
i apologize for the profanity. It’s not my usual MO.
This kind of stuff drives me absolutely nuts. How is an unprovoked war against a nonthreatening nation that has caused countless deaths and emptied our treasury and choked off our economy “just another issue”?
Hillary Clinton thought it would be a good idea to give George W Bush the authority to invade and rebuild an oil-rich country. Good call. Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the show?
I don’t particularly think “contempt for democracy” is a “good reason” but that’s just me.
Clinton’s people are going around saying “if Obama can’t beat Clinton in Pennsylvania, how can he win a general election?”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/7/5416/85334/748/491498
Yet Clinton wants us to believe that even though she can’t beat Obama in the primary, she can win the general. That’s hypocrisy of the highest order.
I’m for Obama. Foreign policy and a general sense of trust - I think I know who I am voting for - are the drivers of that preference. As far as the LGBT community goes, I think there is a level of personal tolerance that extends from Dick Cheney to Obama - no minute reading of phobias and philias, in my opinion, will translate into real policy differences. We know the GOP elite, whatever they think of the sexual preferences of their own sons and daughters, will manipulate the homophobic electorate. I think it is just crazy to think that Obama is doing the same thing in an interview with the Advocate - that is PC run amuck. I think he did allow homophobic manipulation in S.C. I think he has made up for that by doing what he said - talking to supposedly straight groups about gay and lesbian issues. Clinton, stylistically, has been much better - or was. I give her credit for speaking at the Beijing conference in 1995 that set off a feminist revolution in developing countries. But, as so often with Clinton, past performance is no predictor of future positions. Since her turn to the right in the Bush era, she’s shown little compunction about shedding positions that she finds inconvenient. I don’t know if that means she thinks she can sort of layer them in later, after she has power, a la Bill Clinton’s executive orders in 2000, but as we have seen, liberal policy as an afterthought, or as a lame duck perquisite, is pretty easy to erase.
I had a few objections to the way the election was conducted in my precinct. One was minor — a Clinton campaign worker too close to the entrance of the polling place — but two were definitely major: an election official electioneering in support of one candidate, and a place on the ballot which instructed me to vote for no more than two men and three women.
Yeah, I had the same thing on my ballot this morning, only on mine it was no more than four men and three women.
There was also a man standing by the front door wearing a Perot campaign button (?!) Mysterious…
kate217 April 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I never intended to initiate a flame war. I (I thought) respectfully disagreed with a couple of other posters, one of whom doesn’t consider my viewpoint acceptable.
you brought ONE link and half baked argument defending Hillary, then mumbles about some other issues. Then drag out “respect” or whatever …
SKM: Delegates in Pennsylvania are chosen both state at large and by congressional district, which would account for the difference. I live in the 11th congressional district.
squashed, you are being a bully.
As a Canadian, I have no stake in this (well,other than as someone who dearly hopes you fine folks elect someone whose foreign policy isn’t psychopathic and who would like to see my many US lgbt friends - including my partner - have rights.) I think both candidates are far, far better on lgbt issues than anyone else who has ever gotten this close to the nomination. But neither is anywhere close to perfect, and even if one of the dems is elected in November I’ll still quite be happy to stay here where we’ve had employment non-discrimination (including the military) for years and my marriage is legal.
But watching the viciousness with which supporters of the two candidates - either of whom I would be happy to vote for - attack each other is awful. Since most of the stuff that’s bugged me in this thread has been about Hillary I’m addressing that, even though she annoys me too (the latest is the Pearl Harbour ad.)
squashed said repeatedly:
note that Hillary has NOT conduct a single lengthy interview with LGBT outlet. not one!
and
where is Hillary’s Advocate interview? (oh that’s right, she only does gay stuff in obscure publication so nobody can see it.)
not true. Hillary was the first candidate to do an interview with the Advocate and was on the cover in October 2007. You dismiss the interview on Ellen because her audience is gay-friendly, but a lot of us saw it as talking directly to gay people as well as supportive straights. She’s also done interviews with Logo, the Dallas Voice, The Washington Blade, The Philadelphia Gay News, and two gay newspapers in Ohio and met with the HRC (Obama didn’t) and plenty of lgbt groups.
KeithK said:
The only thing worse than single issue voters are ill-informed single issue voters.
Hillary is not only hell bent on continuing the war, but is still in favor of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Nope. She’s been publicly against DADT since 1999, and repealing it is one of her positions. And her voting record on the war has been virtually identical to Obama’s since he joined the Senate. I don’t like her Iran comments - nor his on Pakistan.
Again from squashed:
list of LGBT Obama supporter. (can’t find one for Hillary. …again… where is hers?)
Why, it’s right here, squashed: http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/04/clinton_campaig.html
It’s the same site you got your list from. You might want to be careful before you accuse others of not paying attention.
As for the comments in the Advocate and the Meeks and McClurkin incidents, I don’t think those of us who have concerns are engaging in “PC gone amok.” Obama said:
Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor…And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.
The word “proselytizing” feels like a slap in the face to a lot of lgbt people, since one of the slurs against us is that we “recruit” and “flaunt” our sexual orientation. I don’t at all think it was intended to be offensive, but it was offensive nonetheless. I don’t see Obama as a homophobe, but he certainly associates with some and has been tone deaf on more than on occasion.
No one’s candidate is a god, and supporters of the other candidate aren’t idiots.
woland April 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm
not true. Hillary was the first candidate to do an interview with the Advocate and was on the cover in October 2007. You dismiss the interview on Ellen because her audience is gay-friendly, but a lot of us saw it as talking directly to gay people as well as supportive straights. She’s also done interviews with Logo, the Dallas Voice, The Washington Blade, The Philadelphia Gay News, and two gay newspapers in Ohio and met with the HRC (Obama didn’t) and plenty of lgbt groups.
The youtube is littered with Ellen interviewing everybody, including Obama. EVERYBODY talks to her and her audience. That’s exactly the point of check box pandering. Do the dance, the talk, look friendly, be warm. get the vote. Standard pandering.
But does it change the dynamic of public understanding for lgbt causes? I am dismissing the Ellen interview because it wasn’t mean to enlarge public interest/awareness of LGBT cause.
Can Hillary convince public at large on this issue? She hasn’t proven that. Last time the Clinton does don’t ask don’t tell, democrats lost military vote, because there was lack of general discourse.
The word “proselytizing” feels like a slap in the face to a lot of lgbt people, since one of the slurs against us is that we “recruit” and “flaunt” our sexual orientation. I don’t at all think it was intended to be offensive, but it was offensive nonetheless. I don’t see Obama as a homophobe, but he certainly associates with some and has been tone deaf on more than on occasion.
because he obviously categorizes the lgbt issue within general equal right framework. He is not into baby sitting delicate flowers, queens and looking pretty. He is not into getting down with the correct lingo either.
I rather have slightly tone deaf fighter who will get the basic done, rather than smooth triangulator who hasn’t done anything but tons of sweet promise.
I rather have somebody who has proven he can hold the pain and get it done in a community that is notoriously homophobe, rather than cute 4 minutes talk with neck pillow.
Do you want somebody who can deal with the gangsta rappers, or somebody with goodie bags?
woland April 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm
No one’s candidate is a god, and supporters of the other candidate aren’t idiots.
supporters who hangs on goodie bags instead of calculating various possibilities are idiots.
squashed, you just referred to lgbt people as “delicate flowers and queens” as part of an argument for why they should vote for your candidate. On a feminist blog.
I think we’re done here.
Oh, except - you didn’t just refer to the “notoriously homophobe” (sic) black community as gangsta rappers did you? Cause…yeah.
Squashed, I’m a Hillary supporter - the obnoxious kind who has shunned feminists for months because they support Obama. For the past few weeks it occurred to me that I might have a very difficult decision to make come November and I should figure out what my problem is and whether it warrants my intense dislike and distrust of him.
But you know what, thank you. You convinced me that my gut is right and in November I will be voting third party. I’m sure I’m going to get a ridiculous buttload of phone calls from Obama’s campaign once they figure out that they can’t possibly without me and my fellow Hillary-supporters. Why will they have my phone number? Because I’m a member of a ton of progressive groups and am quite active in liberal politics. But once I get those phone calls, I’m going to remember you and remember that uneducated twits like you are the reason why someone like Obama gets called “progressive” in this political atmosphere and that you are the reason why real progressives like myself are sought after. You can’t tell the difference between someone who attended Toastmaster and someone who works for progress. (1)
This November will be the first time I vote for a progressive and sure as shit won’t be the Democrat. But thank you for helping me figure that out.
(1) For the love of god, please don’t assume that I think Hillary is progressive.
Well, clearly the time has come for Obama to denounce and reject squashed.
It’s sad that the only arguments being made for him are based on personality and aura and not policy.
Late to the game as usual, but if you actually want a policy argument, I have a little post over on Crooked Timber.
woland April 22, 2008 at 10:59 pm
squashed, you just referred to lgbt people as “delicate flowers and queens” as part of an argument for why they should vote for your candidate. On a feminist blog.
no I am referring people who worries about the word “proselytizing” something that clearly relate to existential personal meaning than something that a state should address in term of policy and right.
That words relate to “what am I?”, it’s existentialist. State should butt out. NOBODY can answer that question right, let alone state!
State should only answer things like (not get beat up, tax, roof, health…bla bla) hence, imo, equal right fram is much more practical and powerful.
woland April 22, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Oh, except - you didn’t just refer to the “notoriously homophobe” (sic) black community as gangsta rappers did you? Cause…yeah.
yes. CHURCHES are some of the worst place to talk about gay right. hip-hop and hardcore rock are THE WORST PLACE. It will take enormous energy to change those places.
It’s changing the fundamental of popular culture.
note on gangsta rappers, in case bunch of idiots saying this equals AA community. I am talking about previous post (still in front page. you tube clip in the comment)
Michael Bérubé April 22, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Well, clearly the time has come for Obama to denounce and reject squashed.
I am talking about this clip. related to previous post.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pFSVG7jRp_g
woland April 22, 2008 at 10:59 pm
squashed, you just referred to lgbt people as “delicate flowers and queens” as part of an argument for why they should vote for your candidate. On a feminist blog.
anybody who gets outraged over words, that relates to existentialist meaning and personal takes and get angry if anybody else don’t get it IS unrealistic. Specially if it’s not mainstream and can’t get any result.
That question will get exponentially complicated (Is gay a choice or biological?) It will touch all sort of things that can’t be answered and ultimately get stuck on things like religion talk.
Squashed, are you actually a Clinton supporter? Because you act like all the worst stereotypes of Obama supporters I’ve read… Loud, dismissive, overbearing and pretty much acting like you are the only person who has any idea what they’re talking about and everyone else that doesn’t agree with everything you say is an child (or a woman maybe?). Meanwhile you never make it through two sentences without making a spelling or grammatical error. This is a feminist blog, and one of the points of feminism is to fight male privilege, and you are just overflowing with it. I’d take a moment and reconsider your tactics if you really want people to vote for Obama, because every post you make pushes me further away.
woland April 22, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Oh, except - you didn’t just refer to the “notoriously homophobe” (sic) black community as gangsta rappers did you? Cause…yeah.
yes, that was a bad jump.
but I was thinking along “churches” and previous post related to hip-hop and stuff.
(but since the conversation was rolling along the line of Obama, race, I suppose I did end up saying it badly. my bad.)
Mireille April 23, 2008 at 12:31 am
Squashed, are you actually a Clinton supporter?
nope. I got my reason to get very nasty against the Clinton, lying about the war mainly.
Mireille April 23, 2008 at 12:31 am
.. Loud, dismissive, overbearing and pretty much acting like you are the only person who has any idea what they’re talking about and
that would be me.
… everyone else that doesn’t agree with everything you say is an child (or a woman maybe?).
no I said idiot. (okay well fine. I drop the name calling. fergawd sake. I did say, anybody has the right to call me idiot to if they want. big deal.)
This is a feminist blog, and one of the points of feminism is to fight male privilege
sure, what’s the problem? is this still about “default” who is paying first date? Or is this about the “saucer -eyed” argument ?
Mireille April 23, 2008 at 12:31 am
. I’d take a moment and reconsider your tactics if you really want people to vote for Obama, because every post you make pushes me further away.
What are you saying. If I create a sock puppet doing the reverse of this handle, with all the right BS ‘keywords’ but completely wrong reasoning, you will vote for Obama? or Clinton?
cause obviously, you praise “tactic” over basic tangible idea. Interesting way of seeing it.
Squashed - so far, you’ve called people on this blog idiots, argued with yourself repeatedly (i.e., continuously posting rebuttals to responses no one made), acted like a pathetic bully (”And you better be able to show it …”; “I am calling you out.” WTF?), and ignored repeated suggestions to chill the fuck out.
You’re boring everyone now.
The time you’ve spent posting endless rants on this single thread, plus the repeated mantra of ‘having all the time in the world’ suggests that a) You have no life, and b) You should either get a job or find a hobby that does not rely on the assumption that everyone else has no life too.
Then maybe you’ll stop being boring.
Pennsylvania voted 55% to 45% for Hillary Clinton. Whilst watching the television news this morning — I get dressed for work in front of the TV — I saw the screen crawls concerning the votes by county. Anecdotally (since I haven’t compiled them), the rural, mostly white counties in northeastern Pennsylvania, where the bitter white folks like me live, went for Mrs Clinton by nearly three to one. The county in which I live, Carbon, went 76%-24% for Mrs Clinton, though the final numbers might take a day or two to firm up.
This turned out to be exactly what I’ve been saying all along: a demographic decision. According to The New York Times, the vote broke down like this:
White men: Clinton 53%, Obama 46%
White women: Clinton 64%, Obama 36%
Black men: Clinton 4%, Obama 96%
Black women: Clinton 11%, Obama 89%
Whites: Clinton 60%, Obama 40%
Blacks: Clinton 8%, Obama 92%
Male: Clinton 46%, Obama 53%
Female: Clinton 56%, Obama 44%
Protestant Christian: Clinton 58%, Obama 43%
Catholic: Clinton 70%, Obama 30%
Jewish: Clinton 54%, Obama 46%
Other: N/A
None: Clinton 37%, Obama 63%
And, considering “Operation KAOS,”
Democrats: Clinton 54%, Obama 46%
Ind/GOP: Clinton 46%, Obama 53%
Dana, you seem to be attaching some kind of deep meaning to those figures and I’m not sure why.
This is a Primary. For the Democratic nomination. It says almost nothing about what will happen in November.
Obama will get the nomination, the GOP tomfoolery will not happen in November, and there’s still a lot of time to remind everyone how McCain sold his soul in his last ditch effort to gain POTUS.
His obsession is making me think that he has a variation on the same kind of daddy issues as his new best friend George Bush Jr.
With the American economy rapidly driving into the ditch, and obvious Republican fingerprints all over it, I think you’ve got some serious problems.
The Reichwing better put the racist attacks on the front burner or it’s not going to work out…
Squashed is a bully. if a Clinton supporter was this nasty and aggressive they would have been kicked off on post #3. What are we up to now? Post 99?
Vado April 22, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Squashed, I’m a Hillary supporter - the obnoxious kind who has shunned feminists for months because they support Obama. For the past few weeks it occurred to me that I might have a very difficult decision to make come November and I should figure out what my problem is and whether it warrants my intense dislike and distrust of him.
But you know what, thank you. You convinced me that my gut is right and in November I will be voting third party.
you posted the same thing 3 times.
Meta based argument in web space just doesn’t make sense. Suppose there are 3 sock puppets setting up a scene and one couldn’t identify them. They are meant to create backlash. One bait and two chasers. Being chatty to one another.
Should a vote be based on sock puppets conversation?
The assumption that identity and point of view has one on one correlation is not true in cyberspace.
It’s been over 12 hours…dare we hope that squashed has finally fucking gone to sleep?
“It’s been over 12 hours…dare we hope that squashed has finally fucking gone to sleep?”
That Red Bull is somethin’ else, ain’t it?…
C’mon MikeEss and the matthew show, can’t you see through the sockpuppet handle @123?
Obama supporters: the more people you have like squashed the less likely fence-sitters and former Clinton supporters are to want to have anything to do with your candidate. Period.
Obama’s biggest weakness is the same as Clinton’s, the portion of their supporters who are exceptional assholes. Yes, they are there for both. For some reason, I find the Obama ones I’ve actually met to be far more rabid and off-putting. Just my experience. I’m sure it goes the other way as well for other people.
Neither of these candidates are perfect. Both are a hell of a lot better than we’ve had. Please don’t let the rabid fuck it up for all of us.
Thanks Helen. I made a similar point on another thread where Obama supporters were making snarky, elitist, self-righteous jabs at anyone that dare question or critique the Obama candidacy. This rhetoric is so completely out of sync with what his campaign has been espousing.