I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse.

I’m trying really hard to stay out of the rancor of the primary, because it’s making people really stupid, but good lord I can’t just ignore this.

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization’s two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization’s other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

(more…)

It’s been an interesting and enlightening last few days over at BlueNC since the state primary on the 6th. As you know, Dem U.S. Senate candidate Jim Neal was defeated by Kay Hagan, and the latter will face off against Liddy Dole in the fall. Incidentally, post-primary polls have Hagan at 48%, Dole at 47%. Do-Nothing Dole has a war chest that dwarfs Hagan’s, so Liddy will be able to carpet-bomb the airwaves with ads.

Anyway, the post-mortems over at BlueNC have included “thank you” posts by nearly every candidate who has participated in liveblog sessions over there during this cycle, and the one for Kay Hagan took a bizarre, contentious turn when the subject of those now-infamous questions I asked of the state senator during her liveblog came up.

More below the fold, including important Qs of the day for you all that I hope generates a lot of discussion and feedback I can take back to the folks at BlueNC.
(more…)

I’ve blogged extensively about the U.S. Senate race in the state of North Carolina at my pad, and on occasion here at Pandagon. Bush rubber-stamping Elizabeth Dole absolutely must be unseated, and despite the roiling Dem presidential primary season, I’m glad that the spotlight will be on my state for the May 6 primary — it can only help expose the Democratic U.S. Senate candidates to a wider audience.

The leading Dem candidates are former investment banker Jim Neal (who has received the thumbs up from the netroots, and who’s openly gay) and State Senator Kay Hagan (who was recruited by Chuck Schumer and the DSCC). The latest SurveyUSA poll shows Neal and Hagan effectively tied despite her huge war chest. Neal:

“This proves that grassroots politics works and people power trumps the power of money. Despite being outspent two to one, our message is getting through. The average contribution to our campaign is $80, and I am honored that thousands of North Carolinians are putting their hard-earned money behind us. I will continue reaching out to people across the state, listening to their concerns and learning from their ideas so we can have a government that works for all the people.”

UPDATE: Listen to Jim on yesterday’s Mike Signorile show; he was in studio:

Neal’s campaign has been open and responsive to folks around the state, and to the progressive online community at BlueNC. Questions on policy and even tough ones about campaign tactics have been responded to promptly, publicly, and in detail.

I wish that the Hagan campaign had that same level of respect for members of the BlueNC and LGBT communities.

Sen. Hagan recently held a liveblog at BlueNC, and I had the chance to ask her very specific, detailed questions about LGBT issues and pending legislation, and well, let’s just say that 1) she didn’t adequately address them, and 2) despite repeated attempts to politely contact the campaign for follow up or clarification on the answer given, no one has given me — or several other BlueNC members — the courtesy of a response. Read about the liveblog exchange and the follow up-to-nowhere below the fold.
(more…)

Scott Swenson draws the link that needs to be drawn in all this sturm und drang about Spitzer and the prostitutes: Funny how this is going on while reproductive justice and health activists are fighting a pointless item in PEPFAR—put in by Democrats, mind you—that requires health organizations who do outreach to sex workers sign pledges condemning sex work. Why don’t some of the people defending Spitzer turn some of that energy to defending prostitutes? I can’t help but conclude, with sadness, that we’re looking at further evidence that both pro- and anti-legalization people tend to treat the actual prostitutes as an afterthought. I’m with Scott. Instead of asking health organizations to sign pledges that might alienate the very clients they’re trying to reach, how about we start by making politicians sign pledges swearing not to visit prostitutes?

I’ll show my hand up front—while I’m happy to play partisan Democrat a lot of the time, my sympathy for Spitzer is short to non-existent. I’m with Jeff. Sure, Spitzer is the victim of a double standard here, one that doesn’t apply to Republicans, but that mainly shows that the problem is that Republicans are being held to a too-low standard. First of all, prostitution is illegal, and public officials who help enforce the law against the rest of us need to be held accountable to that law. Second of all, doubly so when it comes to prostitution, because prostitutes are citizens, too, and deserve our protection. But it seems that Spitzer needed so much damn money for his hobby because he enjoyed doing things that were quite likely dangerous to prostitutes, probably asking to go condomless. Do you think, if one of the prostitutes he visited were arrested, he would have come clamoring to her defense? Yeah, neither do I. After all, he helped make his career by busting prostitution rings.

Invariably during these discussions, you get a push and pull between the “sex slaves” people and the “happy hooker” people, with some admitting that both kinds of women exist and most prostitutes are somewhere in between. The only thing I’ve concluded about that is that no one should be arrested for selling sex. Either they’re happy hookers hurting no one or victims of the system who don’t need the state to add to their misery, or some combination of the two, but either way, they shouldn’t go to jail.

For me, the jury’s still out on whether or not it should be illegal to buy sex. On one hand, I am convinced by arguments pointing out that vice laws don’t usually work well enough to justify the loss of freedom, and that there’s a weird nonsensical nature to the argument that it’s okay to sell but not to buy, and inverse of the already-ridiculous drug laws that make selling a worse crime than buying. On the other hand, I’m disgusted by some of the intellectual dishonesty employed by people defending prostitution. By that, I mean the invocation of the Sad Unfuckable John. You know the image—in any debate about prostitution, the pro-legalization ones will overplay their hand and argue that prostitution is this positive thing, because it makes sex available to men, who by virtue of being ugly or deeply nerdy or whatever, are basically unable to get sex from volunteers.

(more…)

For the life of me I just don’t understand the thinking inside the Clinton campaign (and insided the heads of surrogates). Strong supporters of Clinton — please clue me in; I don’t know how the following developments make any sense in terms of political strategy that’s helpful to the candidate:

* Bill and Hillary continuing to promote the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket with her at the top when she’s behind in delegate count;

* Promoting the idea of Obama as VP after spending time and money on ads to convince voters he’s not ready to answer the 3 AM phone call - why would she want someone she’s declared unqualified on the ticket?

* The assertion by Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson that somehow Obama could cross the imaginary 3AM-ready “threshhold” that Hillary has by the convention and thus be qualified for the VP slot.

More after the jump.
(more…)

(UPDATE 2 [5PM]: Jim Neal has his own diary up at DKos, FISA, Telcos, Equality and Fair Play.

UPDATE: Participate in a MoveOn.org poll on this race here. And the DKos thread on this is hopping…)

For those of you out there who don’t have the North Carolina U.S. Senate race on your radar, it’s time to take a look, because you need to see the positions of the candidate the Democratic establishment is backing for the May 6 primary. I know the posts on this race don’t usually garner many comments, but folks need to wake up — adding Blue Dog Dems to the U.S. Senate won’t help LGBT or progressive causes one iota when there is a clear viable choice.

The two main candidates vying for the nom are State Senator Kay Hagan, and businessman and long-time Dem fundraiser Jim Neal (who’s openly gay, which is of course what has garnered the MSM interest so far). As has been noted on the Blend before, Hagan has the backing of the Dem establishment, including Chuck Schumer and the DSCC as well as former gov Jim Hunt and current gov Mike Easley. All the talk from the insiders so far has been about “viability.” However, Hagan and Neal are currently in a dead heat in the latest SurveyUSA poll (24% for Hagan and 23% for Jim Neal), despite Hagan’s war chest, so to write off Neal is a big mistake, for more than that reason, as you will see below.

There was a forum in Winston-Salem on Sunday that folks should take note of. Both candidates appeared, but Hagan refused to appear on stage to take questions alongside Neal, so it wasn’t a true debate. Based on the following on-site report from Kosh (David Allen) at BlueNC (also here), I can see why she balked.

Today I was in Winston-Salem to see Jim Neal address local Dems and hear his views before making my decision on who to support in the primary race the US Senate. When I arrived at the venue I learned that it was actually a double bill, with Kay Hagan as well.

I was told by one of the folks helping organize the event that Ms. Hagan had been invited to appear with Mr. Neal so that questions could be put to both candidates at the same time, highlighting their similarities and differences on the issues of the day. Ms. Hagan, however, declined to appear with Mr. Neal for some reason, so she was first up on the stage and took questions from two moderators, who picked from questions submitted by the audience.

…She was asked if she would have voted for, or against, the FISA bill this week which would have granted retroactive immunity to Telcos for felony violations of the current FISA law.

Ms. Hagan explained that she was against Telcos spying on Americans, but that she would have voted FOR the bill, and granted them immunity, but that future law breaking would not be tolerated.

More below the fold.
(more…)

Will he just go ahead and switch parties, for crying out loud? What's the point of the "D" in a headcount if you include him. (AP):

Lieberman planned to be back on the road for McCain as the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests near.

 

Lieberman's flirtations with Republicans worry Democrats. His defection to the GOP could tip the balance of power in the narrowly divided Senate away from Democrats, who need Lieberman's vote to maintain their fragile 51-49 Senate majority.

Lieberman, in his fourth term, said his decision to endorse a Republican should not be seen as a step toward him jumping to the GOP.

"I don't have any intention of leaving the Democratic Party," he said. "I want to be a senator."

But Lieberman did say that if McCain wins the nomination, he'd likely attend the Republican convention.

"I'd probably be more welcome there," he said.

 

The man who won the popular vote for president in 2000 (and if not for SCOTUS, would have given us a very different last 7 years), shares his views on equality on his cable channel, CurrentTV.

I think it’s wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of a person’s sexual orientation. I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women to make contracts, have hospital visiting rights, and join together in marriage.

I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it for gays and lesbians. Shouldn’t we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one partner regardless of sexual orientation? Because if we don’t do that, then to that extent you are promoting promiscuity and promoting all the problems that can result from promiscuity. And the loyalty and love that people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.

Freedom to Marry on the video:

As the country awaits state high court decisions in marriage cases brought by couples in Connecticut, California, and Iowa; the New Jersey legislature prepares to deal with the reality that civil unions don’t work; and the 11^th Annual Freedom to Marry Week (Feb. 10-16) approaches, Nobel Laureate Al Gore has added his voice in support of ending same-sex couples’ exclusion from marriage.

In a personal video posted on Current TV January 17, shortly before Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Al Gore spoke out in favor of the freedom to marry.

…In response to Gore’s unequivocal and heartfelt statement making the case for marriage equality, Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry (Simon & Schuster 2004), said, “Al Gore, a true world leader, explains it perfectly.  The freedom to marry is about protecting all families and promoting loyalty and love and commitment. As on so many crucial questions, Gore gets it right, and shows what leadership really means.”

Hat tip, Towleroad.

Your eyes aren’t deceiving you; someone (Disney, actually) is making this necklace.

David Neiwert has a post up bemoaning the imminent death of a federal hate crimes bill called the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It’s yet another example of congressional Democrats showing a bewildering lack of political will even to pass fairly non-controversial stuff, similar to their bewildering inability to cut abstinence-only funding in the face of mountains of evidence both that it doesn’t work and that people are turning against it as they find out what it is. What are Democrats so afraid of? I’m not saying there’s no political support for hate-based crimes, gay-bashing, etc., but people who generally enjoy the free reign that members of dominant groups have to terrorize non-dominant groups with violence wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if their lives depended on it.

Moreover, there’s political momentum to revisit the fact that blatant, violent bigotry is still pretty damn common. The Jena 6 incident has drawn a lot of attention to the fact that whites will still happily keep blacks living in fear of violence, and even will go so far as to invoke the symbols of the most famous kind of historical hate crime, lynching.* Congress did finally pass a lynching ban, many decades after that specific kind of hate crime passed out of practice. If only we could get them to give a shit about governing over people that are living in the here and now!

David has a theory as to why political will failed in this case, despite the seeming anti-hate crime momentum—the bill was seen as a gay thing, and connections between gay-bashing and race-based hate crimes were not drawn sufficiently to create a coalition. (I would add that it would help if people drew connections between sexualized hate crimes against women, from banal street harassment to gang rape, and see the big picture of how violence is used to decrease all sorts of people’s freedom.)

Let’s face it: This legislation was tagged as a “gay issue” — mainly because the opposition to it arose almost wholly from the inclusion of sexual preference as a category of bias, fueled by the homophobes of the religious right. And gay-rights groups were certainly in the forefront of pushing the bill. However, other progressives, including those directly affected by hate crimes, neglected to join in the fight to any notable extent. Where were the civil-rights groups, the immigrant-rights groups, the labor unions?

He continues to make an impassioned argument for building alliances by focusing on the interlocking systems of oppression, instead of the current balkanization that defines the left. Personally, I think the free form, non-hierarchical nature of blogs can be and already is a great benefit towards this project. On blogs, especially group blogs, you can have a post about this issue, a post about that, and connections start getting drawn by proximity alone. And then people start moving towards making other connections. There’s a lot of hostility to the idea that bloggers are all talk and not enough action, but the balkanization of the left shows that without people dedicating themselves to the task of spinning ideas and rhetoric, all the emphasis on action will fail us. Civil rights groups may have dropped the ball on this one, but as David points out, anti-racist bloggers were all over it. The tools we have give us this opportunity.

One version of a den of liberal iniquity.

This is a great boon to the pro-comprehensive sex education forces: A group of 10 prominent scientists and researchers in adolescent health and sexuality have written an extensive letter to the Democrats in Congress, requesting that they cut funding for abstinence-only education immediately. It’s a long letter, but well worth reading the whole thing. It’s important to publicize this, because the Democrats need to be in a position where they can’t ignore the issue, and can’t keep trying to save face on this. Right now Democrats are in a political bind, because abstinence-only proponents are super eager to label anyone who advocates for effective programs (i.e., comprehensive sex education) as advocates for teenagers fucking in the streets. And we’re not, and some of us would point out that even if teenagers are fucking in your streets, it’s probably over so quickly you won’t even notice.

What needs to happen is basic reframing. This isn’t about who wants who to have sex with who when, but about who wants kids to be healthy, and who is resigned to letting them get sick. Which is all you’re going to get with abstinence-only. But it’s more than just what “works” better in terms of reducing STDs and pregnancy rates (though comprehensive sex education does), but it’s a philosophical question, too. The very idea that schools should be in the business of reinforcing ignorance instead of improving knowledge is a violation of basic American ideals. Abstinence-only is part of a larger right wing strategy of defining the mission of public education as propagandistic—who cares if you teach them things that are enriching or even fucking correct? The schools are there to preach conservative, white, Christian cultural superiority to a captive audience, in this view. After all, it’s not just abstinence-only that’s part of the agenda. It’s also teaching creationism in schools, and teaching a propagandistic view of history that whitewashes issues like slavery (and that the South seceded over it) and the Indian genocide. Which is turn is about producing another generation of idiots who get boners at the idea of more imperialistic war-mongering, well up until they’re a few years in and realize it’s stupid, you know, after it’s too late to do anything short of damage control. (See: Iraq War)

The more liberal view of education is that it’s about getting educated, not indoctrinated. And comprehensive sex education really epitomizes this philosophy in a way that’s easy to understand. You teach the kids all the various ways to protect themselves, and encourage them to think critically about these methods, instead of giving them as “Do as I say (and not as I do, since I and pretty much everyone will fuck before marriage)” message. The right wing fear that kids won’t do the “right” thing if you give them information and coax them to use their noggins is ill-founded; it’s just setting kids up to learn all the lessons the hard way. Ah, yes, you do get the clap when you fuck around without a condom. Wouldn’t it have been nice if someone had told you that, so you could know beforehand what to do? Having a narrow set of knowledge only works if you live a structured existence, like a child in school, but in the real world, the environment and your life is more open-ended and that’s when those critical thinking skills kick in.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, charged with electing Democrats to the United States Senate, asked State Sen. Kay Hagan to run. She initially showed interest in challenging Elizabeth Dole, but she stepped aside when the DSCC decided to favor prospect state Rep. Grier Martin. When Martin didn't bite, the Dems were left without anyone to field against Liddy Dole, a weak, ineffective tool of the Bush Administration.

In jumped businessman and NC native Jim Neal. In the process he also announced matter of factly that yes, he was gay, and that he was running on the issues and was ready to sweep Dole out.

The first sign something was afoot at the DSCC is that two weeks after Neal announced, his presence was nowhere to be found on its site as a challenger.

Hagen then miraculously announced last week that she had a change of heart and was getting in the race. Suddenly, the same day she announced and her web site went live, the DSCC web site was updated with all announced challengers.

The PC reason cited for Hagen getting in was that Jim Neal's chances for beating Elizabeth Dole were slim because he's a political newcomer (though he is a proven fundraiser), and he has little name recognition. That is completely disingenuous (Hagen doesn't have name rec either). We're not talking about a conspiracy; we're talking about strings being pulled because pols here didn't want to back an openly gay man already out there running.  From the Southern Political Report:

The inside story, according to one Raleigh source, is that both Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and ex-Gov. Jim Hunt (D-NC) had asked Hagan to stay out of the race in favor of state Rep. Grier Martin (D). Hagan agreed to step aside for Martin. Then Martin, son of popular former Charlotte congressional candidate D. G. Martin, backed out, leaving Neal as the only significant contender.

Schumer and Hunt then went back to Hagan, an influential member of the state senate, and asked her to get back in the race. Moreover, given that Neal, 50, though a North Carolinian by birth and education, had lived in New York and Los Angeles until a year ago, there is some doubt about whether he would be a strong nominee even were he not gay. (Neal has, however, raised money for Tar Heel Democrats in the past.)

Another informed Raleigh source tells essentially the same story, but adds that once Martin bowed out and some Democratic powers-that-be found out that Neal is gay — which was known to his friends and family but not to the public at large — “they intensified their pressure on Kay” to get back in the race, “for fear that [Neal] would bring down the rest of the ticket.” A Charlotte source adds, “I’m sure that some people see [being gay] as a non-starter in North Carolina.”

Some people. You know, the unnamed people that never seem to want to go on the record. More after the jump.

(more…)

Something so simple turned into something so damn difficult.

Last night, Marc make the extremely good point that people who dismiss Stephen Colbert’s run for President for lack of seriousness are themselves Not Serious People by real world standards.

The only people who deserve to be the next President are people who had the gall to stand up to the current one before it was cool. And you know who did that? Stephen freaking Colbert. He may well have been the first person in the history of the universe to stand in the same room as George Bush and point out *exactly* why Dubya’s an embarrassment, a war criminal, and a sourpuss. That it was also funny is incidental; Colbert demonstrated more backbone in the face of Republican evil than the other candidates combined. I’m surprised he’s still breathing, honestly.

It’s a shame that Colbert’s possession of a pair of non-gender-specific gamete-producing organs should be a rare trait, but I was reminded again yesterday of how the Democrats could start learning from him instead of waving him off as if he’s just a joke.*

Today, we learned that the Democratic controlled Labor HHS Appropriations conference committee report includes the full $28 million increase requested by President Bush for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs. The Democrats have now granted the president and his anti-sex education zealots a whopping $141 million dollar budget for abstinence-only programs — something they could never achieve even under a conservative Republican Congress!

(more…)

It's funny, I couldn't tell from the photo whether Rev. Andy Sidden, pastor of Garden of Grace United Church of Christ in Columbia, SC was white. After all, I have a family full of relatives who aren't any darker than Sidden.

It boggles the mind that the Obama campaign would select a white pastor to deal with a situation that is awash in black homophobia. Politics 101.

Rev. Sidden is supposed to counter the presence of the recloseted/now-decloseted anti-gay Grammy winning gospel singer Donnie McClurkin at the “Embrace the Change” concerts in South Carolina, sponsored by the Obama campaign designed to court the black vote. Sadly, Sidden is now an unfortunate victim in this debate. I'm sure that whatever message he would deliver would be sensitive and entirely appropriate in many ways, but part of the message has to be that you can be black and gay, and black and gay-affirming. Barack Obama is clearly showing he doesn't understand the need of the religious black community to see one of their own deliver that message.

Sidden was on The Mike Signorile Show today. I just spoke to Mike (will have audio later), and he said that Sidden didn't consider himself very politically active, and that he accepted the mission not because he was an Obama supporter, but because he couldn't turn down anyone asking him to pray. One of the reasons for his selection, he said, was because he was a UCC minister — and because he was openly gay. When Mike asked if Sidden was chosen because of his race, he said no, and did not deny Jasmyne Cannick's description of him as white in her post on the matter.

The last thing a crowd of black folks who have a problem with homosexuality needs is: 1) to be "told" by the Obama campaign that a message about tolerance must be delivered from a white voice of faith, and 2) to have their beliefs confirmed that being gay is "a white man's perversion." Coming from a white pastor under these circumstances, can only be seen as paternalistic and patronizing; the shields of defensiveness will go up, the message will be ignored.

The most stinging message that the Obama campaign has sent is that they apparently didn't see the relevance or necessity of removing the ability of religious blacks to stay in denial, that somehow there is not an intersection of being black and gay. This move renders us invisible yet again, as politically expendable, because it telegraphs that it's too politically volatile to address the division in the community by having them confront one of their own — black gay and gay-affirming ministers — when it comes to looking at bigotry.

Alvin McEwan of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters:

We have been given the hook, pushed to the side, had the trapdoor to the alligator pit released under our feet.

LGBTs of color haven't been just pushed to the back of the bus in this controversy. We have been kicked off of the bus and told to find our own way home.

Perhaps Obama's people couldn't find an openly gay black pastor in time for the event? I don't know. I guess I will give them a little slack.

No, I can’t cut these folks any slack. Did they ask the National Black Justice Coalition for a recommendation for a pastor? I certainly saw a whole lot of them when I attended the organization's National Black Church Summit this year.

Again — could the Obama campaign not type Google.com in their browsers?

Why look, here are four right here…

Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Rev. Benjamin Reynolds, Rev. Zach Jones and Rev. Dyan McRay.

I even had audio up of these folks for the feeble Obama camp to listen to if they wanted to do some research.

What about Rev. Deborah Johnson? Bishop Yvette Flunder? Rev. Irene Monroe?

Forget surfing the web — Obama and his staff were obviously present at the CNN's YouTube Presidential debate. Did they have iPods on when Rev. Reggie Longcrier, pastor of Exodus Missionary Outreach Church in Hickory, N.C. asked this question of John Edwards?

Sen. Edwards has said his opposition to gay marriage has been influenced by his Southern Baptist background. We know religion was once used to justify slavery, segregation and women not being allowed to vote, all of which today are recognized as unconstitutional and socially and morally wrong. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to justify denying gay and lesbian American their full and equal rights.

Certainly I would have had Longcrier on speed dial after that.

Then again, perhaps no gay or gay-affirming black pastors were willing to extract Obama from this mess of his own making. Who knows at this point.

Terrance has a couple of suggestions in his post "Obama’s Crap Sandwich, With Extra Homo", if you Obama folks (that is, if you still have your jobs) — Rev. Horace Griffin, author of Their Own Receive Them Not: African American Lesbians And Gays in Black Churches and Rev. Irene Monroe as well.

Political amateur hour, folks. You have to wonder what was going through their heads.

Keith and Jasmyne have more.

[UPDATE (1:45 PM Fri.): I just spoke with Rev. Sidden directly — he identified himself — and stated plainly that he’s white; since the question was still open in some minds — and he didn’t state affirmatively in Mike Signorile’s interview, I decided to put that to rest.]

Related:
* HRC to Obama: no place for a homophobe on the stage in SC
* Black media ignores the Obama / anti-gay recloseted McClurkin controversy
* McClurkin bobs and weaves, Team Obama scrambles as HRC lowers the boom
* Why is Obama touring with ‘ex-gay’ homophobe Donnie McClurkin?
* Obama won’t back down from SC concert with homobigot ex-gay Donnie McClurkin
* Donnie McClurkin isn’t the only homophobe on the bill with Obama
* Audio from my appearance on the Michelangelo Signorile show on Sirius Out Q Tuesday.

Let's start off with a positive quote of the day from Jim Neal, who's challenging the pathetic Elizabeth Dole for the U.S. Senate:

“I believe that fear keeps many talented people from running for public office. That was something that I quickly got beyond. I wouldn't do this otherwise. I'm in it to win, period.”
– from an interview with Neal by Gary Robertson of the Winston-Salem Journal. Neal, an out gay man, also said that he pledges to keep the campaign where it belongs — about The Empty Wig's record, calling it “very, very thin on achievement.”

***

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's mission is to elect Democrats to the United States Senate.

We are the largest organization solely dedicated to electing a Democratic Senate in the country. From grass-roots organizing to candidate recruitment to providing campaign funds for tight races, the DSCC is working hard all year, every year to increase the number of Democratic Senators.

We are gearing up for the 2008 elections. With George W. Bush in the White House and his continuing hard right agenda, it is essential that we gain even more seats if we are to promote fundamental Democratic ideals of fairness, equality, and freedom.

It's interesting that Jim Neal isn't listed on the Elizabeth Dole page as a challenger. I took a screenshot of Dole's entry on the DSCC page this AM (7:30). It’s after the jump.

(more…)

It’s shit like this that makes me want to throw up my hands and give up caring:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs.

But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic “base” over her failure to end the war in Iraq.

“Look,” she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. “I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things — Buddhas? I don’t know what they were — couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.”

(more…)

I haven’t posted about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act here on Pandagon, but if you've been reading the Blend over the last couple of days, you know that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) will introduce two versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — the original one that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the watered-down, transgender protection-free version that may have a chance of passage (even though everyone knows Bush will veto it). (The Advocate):

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said she wasn’t convinced the original trans-inclusive bill couldn’t pass. “We think the bill was pulled prematurely and abruptly,” said Keisling. “Because they pulled the bill, we’ll never know.”

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), the only other out gay member of Congress, will not put her name on the trans-stripped ENDA bill that will be taken up by the Labor and Education Committee.

In response to the prospect of a non trans-inclusive ENDA, National Stonewall Democrats has put up a web petition, nosubstitutes.org, in support of  the trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, HR 2015  (you can also click the image below).

Congress has the chance to pass HR 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would protect Americans from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Now a substitute bill has been introduced as HR 3685, which would not stop discrimination based on gender identity. Removing gender identity from ENDA would leave an artificial aftertaste. Not only would the substitute bill leave some working Americans behind, it would also create divisions among Democrats and fair-minded advocates.

Let's help Congress continue to build support for the original ENDA. The well-intended substitute just won't do.

The debate within the LGBT community is red-hot over whether there is benefit in passing a T-free ENDA that will be vetoed anyway and whether there will be harm done to the community by declaring the transgendered a segment to be left behind, even symbolically. There is a lot of anger directed at Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, two allies on gay issues, whose reasoning is better to try to pass something rather than nothing, to help some of the community rather than none. Again, Bush would veto either version, so it’s a symbolic vote anyway. Another rationale for removing transgender protections is that Pelosi said the floor debate would be “bruising,” — publicly defending against all the right wing disinformation and hysteria out there over Ts and bathrooms (and “she-males”, transvestites and other BS).

On Friday I happened to be in DC at the Out and Equal Workplace Summit — right when the ENDA issue blew up. I was slated to appear on a panel that was relevant to the developments — Workplace Equality in the American Spotlight — so it was definitely apt timing to talk about the issue of trans inclusion with attendees charged with inclusion and diversity in corporate America. My post on the conference is here.

You can catch up on the issue here:
* The rationalizations of the trans-stripped ENDA crowd fall flat
* More on the ENDA ‘family fight’
* The battle over ENDA
* ENDA in trouble over trans inclusion - and weak Dem spines

Here we go again. Law enforcement using a tool meant for use against violent  out-of-control individuals being used inappropriately.

A University of Florida student attended a forum by John Kerry. He rambled on for a while asking several questions of the senator, including why Kerry capitulated so quickly in the 2004 election when it was clear voting hanky-panky was going on. He went on at length and then police dragged Andrew Meyer, 21, out of the venue and tased him outside the hall:

From coverage of the event:

As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles to escape for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.

Meyer screams for help and asks "What did I do?" as he tries to break away from officers. He is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting. Meyer says he will walk out if the officers let him go.

As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground and yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is Tasered. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"

He was charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace.Kerry condemned the action:

“In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way,” Kerry said in a statement. “I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of responding when he was taken into custody.”

“I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building,” he continued. “I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.”

*** 

And in a story that has received little coverage outside NYC, a veteran of the NYPD says his son was tased by cops four times during a community barbecue for no apparent reason, and beat him 15 times with a nightstick and choked him. (NYDN):

Retired Lt. Alexander Lombard said his son, Alexander Lombard 3rd, 17, was beaten by cops after they arrived at a "community sponsored" barbecue at 126th St. and Park Ave. last month.

"He's truly dismayed by the whole thing," Lombard said, standing next to his son in front of Police Headquarters in lower Manhattan. "He grew up with cops. He was raised to trust cops."

But Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne said in a statement that a police sergeant "employed a Taser against the suspect's ankle" to subdue him after responding to a large disturbance at about 3:30 a.m.

…"The mere fact that he was hit with a Taser four times," Leader said, "and there's no resisting arrest charge, no criminal possession of a weapons charge - it's evident to me that this incident did not justify use of a stun gun."

Hat tip, Too Sense.
 

 

I’m off on the loooong flight this AM to L.A. today to liveblog the The Visible Vote ‘08: A Presidential Forum. As you may have heard, this is not billed as a debate, but a conversation with the Democratic candidates on LGBT issues — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel (because of scheduling conflicts, Dodd and Biden will not be present).

In this format, for better or worse, each candidate will appear solo, on the stage for 15 minutes taking questions from Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge, as well as journalists Margaret Carlson and Jonathan Capehart, and over 4,000 questions were submitted at VisibleVote08.com.

The forum airs at 9PM ET on LOGO with the live webcast at The Visible Vote ‘08. There will be a studio audience there, but the set up will be the same as it was for the PBS debate –  bloggers and the rest of the media will be off in a different, nearby  building, and I was told by MTV/LOGO that none of the candidates will appear afterward in the spin room.

The candidates responded to HRC’s questionnaire on LGBT rights, so you have a general idea of their positions. Answers were released in June in a grid format without candidate comments). The full responses from Clinton, Obama,  Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson and Gravel were made available later, after the Edwards camp released his full answers to the questionnaire to me, (I posted them and blogged about it here).

There will be also be live chat over at Pam’s House Blend during the forum.

***

With many LGBTQ voters of African descent experiencing the downside of diversity by not being fully included in the both African American and gay communities the HRC-Logo debate is viewed as a white queer public soliloquy giving the illusion of inclusion.
–  Rev. Irene Monroe, ordained minister, religion columnist, feminist theologian, questioning whether the HRC/Logo presidential forum will ignore critical issues of concern to the black LGBTQ community

I was just thinking about this issue when I received an email in my inbox from Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project, about an essay there by Reverend Monroe on a population largely unrepresented in either the coverage of or involvement in the forum — communities of color. Many, Monroe says, aren’t even aware of the forum.

“Why would I know about this debate?,” LaShaun Williams of New Orleans told me. “Before Katrina the black and white gay communities was separated. Now after Katrina even moreso because only those who have money either stayed during the city’s renovation or had money to return back. Our community is smaller and more invisible than ever and the gay paper down here doesn’t now and never have circulated where black folks live.”

It’s quite obvious to queer folks of color that “the movement” is overwhemingly white, well-to-do, urban-dwelling, internet-connected — and that means a different worldview (given human nature) about what issues are critical than what may be true in minority queer communities.

The queer community is a decisive electoral force that politicians have learned over the years, for their own campaign survival, that they must at least wink at.

But their winks have never cast eyes on this nation’s black same gender loving communities. And the issues concerning white queer communities are indeed vastly different from the black community.

“We got an entire community dying of AIDS and I know the first question that’s going to come out of somebody’s mouth will be that of gay marriage,” Rita Johnson of Detroit told me.

Social research shows that African-American same-gender households have everything to gain in the struggle for marriage equality and more to lose when states pass amendments banning marriage equality and other forms of partner recognition. For example, in November 2005, Equality Maryland and the National Black Justice Coalition published “Jumping the Broom: a Black Perspective on Same-Gender Marriage.” And the statistics revealed the following: Forty-five percent of black same-sex couples reported stable relationships of five years or longer. And 20 percent of black men and 24 percent of black women in same-sex households are denied health care benefits for their partners by the government.

Marriage is important, but so is tackling the religious homophobia in the black community that drives discussion of sexuality, safer sex, monogomy and honesty deep into the closet.

More than one person of color frustrated by the lack of the gay white establishment’s involvement in these issues has told me that it’s always couched as a third rail issue — that they don’t want to address black homophobia, for instance, because it’s something that needs to be “dealt with internally,” meaning it’s up to LGBTQ blacks to handle it because the white establishment doesn’t want to be perceived as “meddling” in a minority community’s “issue.”

Of course this is bunk. Homophobia is homophobia, and begging off any struggle simply because it’s difficult to negotiate or makes one uncomfortable is a pitiful position to hold, given it’s the very same message we’ve heard in the past from our alleged Democratic allies. How many times were we told back in prior election cycles that we (the gay community as a whole) are responsible for “winning over” the American public to convince them that our civil rights are important. We were told we were on our own because the political risk was too great for them at the time.

What, pray tell, is the difference?
(more…)

Hey, what’s up.

Listen, I know you’re busy people - so am I; that’s why I haven’t posted in about a week. And as a busy person, I know what it’s like when someone tries to dump even one more thing on my schedule. So I hesitate-it really pains me to ask this - but, if you have a spare moment and don’t need a nap or anything, do you think you could take a moment to

SAVE OUR GODDAMN REPUBLIC?

(No, I’m not actually denigrating your level of activism; that would be the rankest hypocrisy coming from me. But I thought that a momentous occasion probably deserved a little bit of fanfare, and in Auguste’s world, fanfare = irony.)

More on this. And if you live in Connecticut, Nebraska (twice over), Indiana, Idaho, Maine, or Crazytown* it’s really important you call your Senators and, you know, ask them to

SAVE OUR GODDAMN REPUBLIC.

Let’s make our elected representatives rue the day the cell phone companies started offering free long-distance**.

(Don’t forget to do this while you’re at it, if you haven’t already.)

—————————

* A comment on Lamar Alexander, not Tennessee.

** They’re mostly toll-free numbers, but I like hackneyed rhetorical flourishes.

Update: Nicholas points out that the abstinence-only funding was a political compromise made under a petulant and obstinate President. Fair enough.

Democrats are back to their old tricks of thinking that imitating Republicans’ electoral successes means pandering to the exact same voters that Republicans pander to. In this case, it’s blatantly stupid—they’re financing the same old abstinence-only non-education boondoggles that we already know don’t “work”, unless your measure of success is making kids even stupider about sex. (Which is what I do think is the measure of success within the abstinence-only industry.) The only reasons to finance these boondoggles is to pander to the religious right and evade accusations of wanting kids to have sex. These reasons are bunk, because a) they will never vote for Democrats and b) they’re going to say that no matter what you do.

To make it even dumber, as Digby notes, giving money to the religious right is basically financing your opposition.

So you have an obscenely expensive program that the data shows doesn’t work, that Democrats don’t want and that actually hurts kids. The only people it benefits are a bunch of right wing extremist scam artists who would rather put ice picks in their eyes than support a Democrat — and the Republican party, who continue to receive plenty of largesse in return. Yet the Democratic congress has agreed to fund it.

This is political malpractice — the K Street project in reverse. If you are going to sell out your principles, you are at least supposed to get something out of it. These programs help Republicans and only Republicans. Talk about getting the milk for free…

The GOP understands very well that power begets power and they went so far over the top that they actually began to illegally use executive power to rig elections (and possibly spy on their political enemies — we don’t know.) It would be wrong for Democrats to go that far, of course. But if the Democrats are unwilling or unable to even pass legislation that has the salutary effect of enhancing their political power, the least they could do is not pass legislation that enhances the political clout of the Republicans. It’s not too much to ask, particularly when the interests they are funding are actually hurting America’s kids with superstitious nonsense.

Maybe they are just scared to death of being accused of trying to use power to keep power, so they’re selling themselves out. But I doubt it. I think what’s going on is the mainstream media and the conservative-minded political class are pushing a story about how Democrats need to move to the right on social issues to keep power. The myth has sunk in that there’s a bunch of Bible-thumpers out there sitting on the fence who’ll come over to the Democratic party if the party was just a little more hateful to women and gays. Call it the Great Religious Left Hope. Of course, the idea that the religious left is weak because of secular humanists who prize human rights is blooey—if anything, the religious left is weak because the religious right has lobbied an ongoing attack on the religious left to harass them, sow discontent, and dismantle the churches from the inside. Instead of negative, fearful attempts to pander in order to create loyal Democrats amongst Christians, Democrats probably need to embrace a more positive strategy. Why move to the right on social issues when you can instead just play up issues where liberal values dovetail with the ones that Christians value? Those fence-sitting Christians, if they are sincere in their religious beliefs, can be pulled into the liberal camp by pushing for peace and fighting against poverty.

On the whole, the Democrats would do well to think about building the base instead of trying to sneak a few swing voters in by moving to the right. If you want to see how Republicans win despite having a largely unpopular platform, look to how they built a loyal base. First of all, they have huge cash giveaways to their loyal base, such as with these abstinence-only boondoggles. As Digby said, that might be unethical sometimes, but sometimes it’s not only right for the party but right for the country. Universal health care, for instance, would both be the right thing to do and create an entire population of people afraid to vote for Republicans for fear of losing their coverage. Another thing that would be wise would be to dump a lot of funding into making cities more liveable, such as public transportation, to encourage people to move out of the red suburbs and into the blue cities, because urban voters tend to vote Democratic. And, of course, it would be much better for the environment. A little creative thinking would go a long way, and be much more effective than this pander-to-the-right strategy.

The city of Kalamazoo has decided to strip health benefits from domestic partners of municipal employees. We all knew this kind of fallout was coming if marriage amendments passed in states around the country, and now Michigan is providing a stark look at what is likely to come. (365gay):

City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

In granting leave to appeal the court said that the lower court’s order cannot be held up.

Four Kalamazoo gay city workers have their families covered under the benefits plan.  Civil rights activists say they believe other cities and state funded universities that offer domestic partner benefits will follow suit.

The state amendment defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman and any other arrangement “or similar union for any purpose” will not be recognized. This specific language is meant to hurt gays and lesbians, not “protect marriage.”

As these amendments passed, valiant efforts were made at the grassroots level to fight them off, but there was silence at the national level, even capitulation as a “leave it to the states” attitude prevailed. Civil rights were allowed to be determined at the ballot box, and ambitious pols threw gays and lesbians in vulnerable states to the wolves of the fear-mongering right.

The bleeding will continue in Michigan as the University of Michigan and Wayne State University have been directed by the court to shut down their benefits programs currently offered to gay and lesbian couples.

Presidential candidates — is this kind of discrimination a matter of states’ rights or civil rights? We’d like to know.

It’s critical, particularly since Hillary Clinton for example, while endorsing the repeal of the portion of DOMA that bans federal recognition of same-sex relationships in states where marriage equality (or CUs, or DPs) exists — still believes that states should decide which civil rights their taxpaying residents are entitled to.

In the meantime, states will have to make a decision about whether they want to portray themselves as welcoming of diversity, or as an arm of the religious right. The best and the brightest will look elsewhere when job hunting; LGBT residents will migrate to friendlier environs (taking their tax dollars with them), and large companies that count on and appreciate diversity will look elsewhere to do business and set up shop. It’s not only the fundamentalists that get to make decisions about a state’s economic fate.

Related:
* The rights rollback continues in Michigan

How does this:

square with this?

President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday.

The comparison was offered as the Pentagon announced the completion of the troop buildup ordered by Bush in January. The last of about 21,500 combat troops to arrive were an Army brigade in Baghdad and a Marine unit heading into the Anbar province in western Iraq.

…The comparison with South Korea paints a picture of a lengthy U.S. commitment at a time when Americans have grown weary of the Iraq war and want U.S. troops to start coming home. Bush vetoed legislation that would set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals, and forced Congress to approve a new bill stripped of troop pullout language.

Just asking. Perhaps the sign on the aircraft carrier should have said “Mission Accomplished in 50 Years.” Future presidents will be cursing Bush’s name each and every day as they have to clean up his mess that was based on greed,  ignorance of the country and region, “mistakes,” “bad judgment” and, well, plain old lies.

***

Bonus: see Holy Joe get smoked by questions from soldiers on a visit to Iraq after the jump.
(more…)

Hey Pandagonianers! Are you pissed off beyond all endurance by the Democrats’ collapse on Iraq, followed by their bizarro-world bragging about the craftiness with which they collapsed on Iraq? Well, don’t just get angry — get going! To the fastest-growing, always-already-splitting and always-already-fused political party in the United States! Good lord, no, not the Greens. And not the Blues either! Drop your reds. Drop your greens and blues. Think bigger, people. Think beyond utopian. Think: another (obliterated) world is possible. We Are All Giant Nuclear Fireball Now!

The official WAAGNFNP blog launched way back on March 21 of this year. And shame on me for not spreading the word earlier! What with its atomic lineup and kickass discussions of participatory parity, the WAAGNFNP is the place for you if you’re fed up with Democrats and with people who are always fed up with Democrats. (Kudos, by the way, to all those Democrats who called this latest party travesty a travesty.)

And now for some weekend arbitrary-but-funtime. Not long ago, the ABF division of the WAAGNFNP asked you to name the worst uses of the saxophone known to humankind. (We asked for specific songs, but some of you cheated anyway and said “Kenny G.�?) This time, we’re going to make things a little more interesting.

Most solos in rock/pop are guitar solos, of course. Then there are your sax solos and your piano solos here and there. Some of ‘em are good. And there’s Denny Dias’s amazing electric sitar solo in Steely Dan’s “Do It Again.�? But what about all the other (non-stringed) instruments in the world? Over two years ago, in comment 48 of of this most diverting and dilating thread, I speculated on the comparative worth of the flute solos in Jethro Tull’s “Locomotive Breath�? and Stevie Wonder’s “Another Star.�? I have since been reminded by my trusty iPod that Brick’s 1976 song “Dazz�? contains a pretty kicky bit of flutin’ as well. Of course, we can all agree that Alan Civil’s work on the Beatles’ “For No One�? (a solo reportedly whistled by McCartney to George Martin, who then booked Civil for the job) is the best French horn solo in rock/pop. And we should show some love for Chet Baker’s evocative trumpet on Elvis Costello’s “Shipbuilding.” But let’s not forget that happy, zippy xylophonin’ on Robert Palmer’s “Clues,�? either!

So go and visit the WAAGNFNP today. Join us before we join you! And think of some great solos with lesser-used non-stringy instruments, if you’d be so kind. Extra special bonus points for anyone who comes up with a great oboe or bassoon solo.

The circle is now complete. The failed U.S. Senate candidate from Tennessee, former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., finds a home.  (The Tennessean):

Now heading the Democratic Leadership Council and working for Merrill Lynch, the former Congressman from Memphis was bested by Republican Bob Corker in the November election.

Former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. has joined FOX News as a political contributor to the network’s news programming, announced Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of FOX News. He will be under contract with FOX News to provide political commentary and analysis on international events and the 2008 election.

…In making the announcement, Ailes said, “We are very happy that Harold Ford, Jr. will bring his independent voice and brilliant ability to analyze the issues to FOX News. His wealth of experience and insight will be key to FOX as we endeavor to stay on top of fast moving events around the world and here in our own country. The upcoming Presidential campaign will be one of the most interesting in our lifetime and Harold’s depth of knowledge and analysis about American politics will enhance the news we deliver to our viewers.”

Harold Ford, the man who carried business cards with the Ten Commandments on them during his campaign, the homophobe who bleated his head off about the evils of the NJ marriage ruling. Yes, he’s home.

I received plenty of emails about Hillary Clinton’s triangulation over Gen. Peter Pace’s assertion that gays are immoral, however she’s not the only one who bobbed and weaved.

An ABC reporter asked her a direct question about whether homosexuality was immoral, and the wheels spun and this came out.

“Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude.”

Hardly a statement of support for a community that she’s trying to squeeze cash out of on the DL.

This shouldn’t have been a hard answer to offer up, given she’s for the repeal of DADT, but there you have it. Her inability to answer the question with a flat out “no” to ABC resulted in underlings scrambling to clarify the message. (CNN):

Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reins, said the New York senator “obviously” disagrees with Pace and that everyone, including the general, “has the right to be wrong, but should not inject their personal beliefs into public policy.”

Then Wednesday night, the campaign released a statement from the senator herself, saying, “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple.”

“It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world,” Clinton said.

But let’s be fair — Barack Obama was equally weak on this matter. When asked the same question about homosexuality and immorality, suddenly the smooth-talking, crowd-pleasing Obama caught a bad case of the sHillaries when talking to Newsday:

On Wednesday, Newsday repeatedly asked Obama if same-sex relationships were immoral.

“I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters,” said Obama, leaving Capitol Hill. “That’s probably a good tradition to follow.”

He turned the conversation to opposition to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy: “I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country.”

Later, an Obama spokesman said the senator, in fact, disagrees with Pace.

What? He had to have this leak out through a spokesperson after the horse is out of the barn? How w-e-a-k is that?! But think about it. These were calculated answers. Take a look at this insight into the homo-triangulation going on in both campaigns:

Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace’s views.

Sigh.

At least John Edwards had the cojones to directly answer the question on the first try when Wolf Blitzer asked him about it on The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Let’s talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don’t change the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?

EDWARDS: I don’t — don’t share that view. And I would go — go further than that, Wolf. I think the don’t ask, don’t tell is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy.

BLITZER: Is the don’t ask, don’t tell policy immoral?

EDWARDS: I think the don’t ask, don’t tell policy is wrong. It’s not working. I think what it’s done, effectively, is kept us from having some of the most talented people we could have in our military. It’s caused — caused more problems than it’s solved. And it ought to be changed.

He also reiterated his position on marriage equality and his struggle with “crossing the bridge” to accept it. See that after the jump.
(more…)

Auguste was out of the box first, but I wanted to toss in my two cents on this mess.

Ann Coulter is easy.  She’s a buffoon and a loose cannon who should be marginalized by conservatives. No one should be surprised when she opens her pie hole and “faggot” drops out. This is her shock-jock-political-chick schtick. It’s sold a lot of books, gotten her on the boob-tube, and allowed her to travel around the country earning a living speaking to horny young Republican Yellow Elephant frat boys.

She was a useful tool for the Republicans for a while, but, as Tim Hardaway and the Snickers folks learned, blatant homophobia isn’t selling like it used to. Coulter’s remarks are simply stale bad theatre and it should have been treated as such.

The auto-generated condemnation statement by HRC is a given; no news here. This incident should have presented an easy opportunity for the DNC and all of the Democratic presidential candidates to not just condemn Coulter’s comments, but to ask aloud why she feels compelled to use homophobic commentary to make a political point and how it directly affects gays and lesbians in the real world.

To address what Coulter’s remarks mean on anything besides the superficial level we are seeing — and to generate real discussion about homophobia in the political debate, I guess we have to look elsewhere.

As I was mulling about what else to say on this topic, this popped in my mailbox (see after the flip)…
(more…)

Newsweek’s report, Bush’s Best Democratic Buddy, reveals that Joe Lieberman has sunk to a new low of fealty to Bush.

After spending his re-election campaign damning the administration for its handling of Katrina, now that he’s in a position to take action as chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, he’s backing off for a call for transparency in the name of “bipartisanship.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman,  the only Democrat to endorse President Bush’s new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

…the decision by Lieberman, the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to back away from the committee’s Katrina probe is already dismaying public-interest groups and others who hoped the Democratic victory in November would lead to more aggressive investigations of one of the White House’s most spectacular foul-ups.

What kind of material has not been released that would uncover the incompetencies?

* the videoconference in which former FEMA head Michael Brown warned senior White House officials about the effect of Katrina’s hit on the Gulf and conditions in New Orleans — which includes the “deafening silence” of the reaction to the news.

* records of communications with Darth Cheney, Bush and their aides during the period between late August and early September 2005 as the waters rose, forcing thousands of NOLA residents to rooftops awaiting rescue and to overcrowded, dangerous shelters.

Holy Joe now doesn’t see a need for the country to know anything about this.

Lieberman has decided not to pursue the material, according to Leslie Phillips, the senator’s chief committee spokeswoman. “The senator now intends to focus his attention on the future security of the American people and other matters and does not expect to revisit the White House’s role in Katrina,” she told NEWSWEEK.

…Katrina was perhaps the government’s biggest failure ever,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a liberal watchdog group. “For the Congress not to be willing to stand up to the White House and demand to know who’s accountable is a total abdication of their responsibility. How serious about oversight are they if they’re not willing to flex their muscle over this one? Wasn’t the election about holding the government accountable? Congress has the power for oversight, and the mandate. Does it have the will?”

Jesus. He’s disgusting. The Bush administration’s mishandling of the largest natural disaster in this country is not worth investigating — has Lieberman been to NOLA and seen the devastation? Hell, has he even tuned in to Anderson Cooper 360 to see the what the conditions are there 500 days after the storm hit?

If we can’t count on Congress to do the right thing, at least the courts are addressing some of the pain and corruption left in Katrina’s wake. Read more after the flip.
(more…)

The fundie-courting centrist Democratic Leadership Council, according to Radar.com, is going to tap former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford head up the think tank, replacing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (Vilsack has announced his 2008 prez candidacy).

Boy, that’s no surprise. Vilsack has no name recognition, and Ford is right up the DLC alley, a real wet dream for CEO Al From. Ford, in his close loss to Bob Corker, had no problem kneeling before the right wing, carrying business cards with the Ten Commandments on back, and bleating his head off about the evils of the NJ marriage equality ruling.

“I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there’s a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it.”

And here’s more “centrist” blather, that must have won over From’s heart.

“People who are giving me this money know that I’m for the Second Amendment, they know I’m against same-sex marriage, they know I’m for the display of the Ten Commandments in public places, they realize I’m not for abortion on demand, and they also understand that I don’t want to see the flag desecrated.

Radar has obtained an amusing memo from Ford, where is is doing some serious sucking up to From. It also previews that the DLC will back sHillary over Vilsack (big surprise there, huh?).

After interviewing a number of high-profile candidates for the job, DLC honchos decided that Ford would be the ideal choice to run the group. In the Jan. 8 memo obtained by Radar, Ford seemed to eagerly anticipate the prospect. “I have enjoyed our conversations and am excited about becoming the Chairman of the DLC,” Ford wrote to Al From, the DLC’s CEO. “Your stewardship of the organization over the years has made the DLC one of the premiere Democratic think tanks.”

…”I assume there will be an effort to help Senator Clinton’s campaign, and I would support such an effort,” Ford writes. “But the bottom line is that we will need a competitive candidate to endorse some or all of our policy agenda.”

These folks deserve each other.

Ah, are any of you surprised at this development? One can only hope that she doesn’t equate “religious” with “fundie” in the vote chasing…oops. Too late. (The Hill):

Burns Strider, one of the Democratic Party’s leading strategists on winning over evangelicals and other values-driven voters, will join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as she prepares to launch her 2008 presidential campaign.

Strider now heads religious outreach for the House Democratic Caucus, and is the lead staffer for the Democrats’ Faith Working Group, headed by incoming Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.)

…Strider’s move to Clinton’s camp suggests that Democrats will woo so-called faith voters in the 2008 election. The plan is buoyed by the Democrats’ success in winning over religious voters in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the midterm elections.

Why do these people, if they honestly are concerned about faith and politics, completely ignore the large center (assuming the progressive religious left wouldn’t need wooing)? It’s like a replay of Howard Dean, crowing about winning a third of the evangelical vote this fall, and appearing on the 700 Club.

Will this courting of this demo, which we all know voted for those marriage amendments, fool anyone? It doesn’t appear to be winning any votes over at WND.

What do you think of Hillary hiring a ‘faith guru’ for her likely presidential campaign?

This is the third of my series of posts on the horror show that is the clueless John Kerry. He continues to fantasize about a comeback and utters batsh*t statements like this:

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry insisted on Sunday his “botched joke” about President Bush’s Iraq policy would not undermine a possible White House campaign in 2008.

“Not in the least,” Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said when asked if the furor over his comment had caused him to reconsider a 2008 race. “The parlor game of who’s up, who’s down, today or tomorrow, if I listened to that stuff, I would never have won the nomination.”

He really needs to hang it up. It’s embarrassing. Remember this from my first “Please god, no” post:

Kerry: I’m prepared to kick Swift Boat’s ass. Jeebus on a cracker. Yeah, man. It’s a little late for action on that front, isn’t it? Read the delusion.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) doesn’t believe that Hillary Clinton has the inside track on the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and says he would vigorously defend himself against new attacks by the Swift Boat team, according to an interview with The Examiner.

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” said Kerry, in a strong hint that he intends to run for president once again. Stop. It. Now.

In my second PGN post on Kerry’s inner circle floating rumors of a 2008 run, Blenders ripped him a new one in the comments. Kerry’s toast if he runs.