Dems debate for Logo

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/07/democratic-pres.html

Democratic Presidential Candidates to Have First-Ever Gay Debate

The Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese and Melissa Etheridge will question Democratic candidates in Los Angeles in a first-ever debate on gay issues, sponsored by LOGO and HRC. It will take place on August 9 and be broadcast live on LOGO as well as stream live at their website.

According to 365gay.com, "the panelists in a statement said they plan to cover a range of issues including relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, HIV/AIDS and other important issues."

In addition to questions from Solmonese and Etheridge, others will be able to participate by submitting questions through LOGOonline and HRC.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama have all confirmed they will take part in the debate.

Sounds like progress to me.

Now.....what will the party of Karl Rove do?

[u-dog]

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/07/democratic-pres.html



Sounds like progress to me.

Now.....what will the party of Karl Rove do?



NOT that, I'm bettin':rolleyes:

[RedneckDyke]

I'd like to hear what these people have to say. The democrats are a big disapointment to me. they seem pretty wishy washy. We keep on working on getting them elected and what have they done for us?

[tdogg]

I'd like to hear what these people have to say. The democrats are a big disapointment to me. they seem pretty wishy washy. We keep on working on getting them elected and what have they done for us?

A lot more than the republicans...just mho.

Thanks for the info Daniel, will definitely tune in! Did you catch the You Tube debate? It was pretty good. I like the nervousness displayed by Candidate Edwards....:p

[Dash]

Sounds like progress to me.

Now.....what will the party of Karl Rove do?

Wow...

Hmmmmm....

Wouldn't it be fun to see the Democratic candidates fighting over who loves the gays best? :lol::rolleyes:

As for the Republican party, I can only imagine that they'll say the Dems are caving to "those wacky gay activists."

...though, "wacky" won't be their descriptor of choice... :rolleyes:

[dsdrane]

...though, "wacky" won't be their descriptor of choice... :rolleyes:

Ummmm...zany??

[labguy22]

I heard this was going to be on Logo. Here's a link that allows us to ask questions...yes, yes, I know, I am also gullible but what the heck:lol:
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/

[Daniel]

Thanks for the link.

Here are my questions that I sent in:

Who was the first person who knew was gay?

Do you believe God accepts gay people?

Do you support legislation that recognizes same-sex partners from other countries?

[u-dog]

So anybody else going to watch with me?

[Daniel]

Just tuned in....a bit late.....Obama is answering Margaret Carlson. Love her. She's a straight shooter. :D

[Daniel]

Heard the end of Obama's time......what was interesting was his answer to Carlson about civil rights and gay rights not being the same, yet being on a parallel track....and that injustice needed to be addressed.

[u-dog]

OK so we had to wait for Polly to get home from work. so we're behind

[Daniel]

Watching Edwards being pinned down on the issue of same-sex marriage. He believes in civil unions, but not gay marriage. (grrrrrrr!) He would like to see Doma repealed. And Don't Ask Don't Tell.

"That's the best I can do'.

Ain't enough for me! :lol:

I want marriage!

[Zerbie]

I tuned in about 15 minutes ago.

Is Kucinich for real?!!?!

[u-dog]

I'm watching on TIVO so I'm about a half hour behind but let me just say


BARRACK OBAMA ROCKS !!!!

[Zerbie]

I'm watching on TIVO so I'm about a half hour behind but let me just say


BARRACK OBAMA ROCKS !!!!

I missed everyone before Kucinich. What did Obama say?

[u-dog]

I missed everyone before Kucinich. What did Obama say?


He opposses DOMA. He supports full civil rights for glbt people. He supports full equal federal and state rights and benefits to glbt people. he doesn't believe that Churches should determine who gets rights.

but what made him rock was how articulate he was in answering the questions and how straight forward he was with his convictions. very little political double-speak.


John Edwards wasn't too shabby either.

[Zerbie]

Wow, Richardson is really uncomfortable.

[tdogg]

Only saw the last part of Richardson (not impressed, but not one of my favs anyway) and Clinton. But it's on the DVR, I'll watch it all with my partner including the wrap up.

Is any of them for gay "marriage"?

Missed Kucinich, what about him Z?

Now is the wrap up, but I'm here, sorta tuning in. But like I said, I'll get it all in when my partner can watch with me. Anyone watched the whole thing and can compare Clinton with the others?

[u-dog]

Only saw the last part of Richardson (not impressed, but not one of my favs anyway) and Clinton. But it's on the DVR, I'll watch it all with my partner including the wrap up.

Is any of them for gay "marriage"?

Missed Kucinich, what about him Z?

Now is the wrap up, but I'm here, sorta tuning in. But like I said, I'll get it all in when my partner can watch with me. Anyone watched the whole thing and can compare Clinton with the others?


Kucinich and Gravel came out for gay marriage. Obama and Edwards and Richards came out for civilly recognized unions.

Haven't heard from Hillary yet (TIVO)

[Daniel]

Kucinich inspired a love fest. He's really where I am. And I laughed when Carlson remarked on his being so 'evolved'. He sounds like he really is. Far far ahead of where the other candidates are at. I wonder if that's why he isn't getting the support he deserves.

There may be a more salient reason however: people can be so biased towards diminuative men. And Senator Kuchinich- I feel- is being discriminated against. Heck. He is a dynamite candidate for many reasons, but he always is sidelined. And the only reason I can think of is because of his physical appearance. Elf-like.

Garvel came across well. Didn't know a thing about him before this. It was great to hear him say that men his age are 'wrong' in their oppostion to gay rights.

Edwards- what struck me is that he sounded like he was going to change his tune on gay marriage (he is against it), but when pinned down, turned red in the face. Wanting to be on the right side of the issue, but holding the line as to win the South? I don't buy his thing about 'religous reasons'. Doesn't feel right when he says it. I think he has political reasons.

Richardson seemed verrrrrrry cautious. And, at one point, even sighed heavily after being asked asked about gay marriage. The energy seemed to be sucked out of the room at that point.

And then there was Clinton. The master of 'context'. She gave the impression that she was going to bring the country along and let the states do as they wanted to do....ie... gay marriage. Melissa Etheridge tossed a zinger to Clinton regarding the high hopes for her husbands persidency regarding LGBT rights- and Clinton- answered like Bill himself, that is, feeling Etheridge's pain. That wasn't enough for me. I want rights, not feeling. That said, the senator from NY makes the temperature in the room rise.

[BruceChris]

But Hillary took it in a walk!

P&L, BC

Hey, they seem to be giving us a second showing, if you missed anything, or just want to see it again

www.logoonline.com

EDIT:

Early Logo pole results: Obama, 36%, Kucinich, 25%, Clinton, 20%

[Zerbie]

I don't know what to make of Hillary. I'm all for pragmatism and doing only what is actually possible, but I actually found her response to Etheridge terribly invalidating. That isn't just Etheridge's individual personal "pain" or something, that is what basically the ENTIRE gay community went through with the Clinton administration and all that sense of being kicked in the gut.

Otoh, she inspires a sense of confidence in the "can-do" attitude, and no one can beat her experience and savvy.

Not sure that's going to inspire my support, though.

I liked Richardson better before tonight.

This is the first time Kucinich has gotten on my radar. He sounded like me! :eek: That's why I asked "is he for real?" Like, can someone who talks about loving your fellow human beings and doing what is RIGHT, can that possibly be a candidate???!!

I've seen Gravel before and disliked him because of a certain "crustiness." Nevertheless, I'm loving his positions espoused tonight, and laughed aloud at his mention of "all you gotta do is live long enough" - I like broad perspective, and I like that older folks have that.

Crying shame I missed Obama - I'm really interested in him. Edwards, ditto.

[tdogg]

I was really impressed by Hillary. And she looks GREAT in that red jacket! She would definitely be the best looking president ever.

Seriously tho, I do feel we would progress in many ways with her in charge. But she does show a hesitation towards full equality, in that I think she feels the need to preserve something of conservatism in order to get elected.

Kucinich is awesome, as much as I would LOVE to see a female president, I'm very impressed with Mr. K. I will keep my eyes and ears and mind open in the next couple of months and see what gives. Is there ANY chance he would have to get nominated???? What can we do to get these less rich, less known candidates that we believe in, nominated?

[wmanion]

I did not get to see the broadcast so I was sad, but I have been following all of your comments since I trust you all. I did read an article today on yahoo about the debate. Logo also offered the Republican Canidates equal time and a debate of their own but none were interested.

Bill

[u-dog]

I did not get to see the broadcast so I was sad, but I have been following all of your comments since I trust you all. I did read an article today on yahoo about the debate. Logo also offered the Republican Canidates equal time and a debate of their own but none were interested.

Bill

:eek::eek: Really? the Republicans wouldn't come? :eek: How surprising :rolleyes:
:lol:

Of the candidates who have a chance to be elected Obama came across the most positively.

[tdogg]

Edwards on now (Logo is doing a 2nd broadcast of the debate), never been a fan...he is really red (always). He was red when responding to the 'gay equality' issue on the You Tube debate.

I really like Obama, but I have to say Hillary sounds the most intelligent, confident, experienced. Not just tonight but over all.

Looking forward to listening to Kucinich. Oops, couldn't wait for my sweetie to come home..I'm watching with her! Oh well, i'll watch it again.

Now for the bummer...Lately our LOGO channel has been trying to scramble, it's a mess. So I'm wondering if it's the cable company, or if someone is screwing around with our cable??? Will be checking with the cable co, not cool to scramble the channel especially on such an important night. Sound is no problem, but the visual is :eek: A few seconds of clear pic, a few seconds of scramble, and the appearance that all involved are in some sort of cheesy Godzilla movie....(mouth moving well after the words are spoken...) :mad:

[Daniel]

Husband and I were talking about the Logo event for some time afterwards, and Mr. Husband made the following observation which ran something like this.

The fact that these candidates are on TV discussing these issues shows that the debate is over. There isn't any acceptable reason to deny gay people their rights any more. Think about it this way. They passed civil rights laws. And while here are still those on the far right who try to keep black folks from voting, civil rights are beyond debating. Gay rights is at just such a point in time. It will be a reality. And the candidates know this.

[u-dog]

Edwards on now (Logo is doing a 2nd broadcast of the debate), never been a fan...he is really red (always). He was red when responding to the 'gay equality' issue on the You Tube debate.

I really like Obama, but I have to say Hillary sounds the most intelligent, confident, experienced. Not just tonight but over all.

Looking forward to listening to Kucinich. Oops, couldn't wait for my sweetie to come home..I'm watching with her! Oh well, i'll watch it again.

Now for the bummer...Lately our LOGO channel has been trying to scramble, it's a mess. So I'm wondering if it's the cable company, or if someone is screwing around with our cable??? Will be checking with the cable co, not cool to scramble the channel especially on such an important night. Sound is no problem, but the visual is :eek: A few seconds of clear pic, a few seconds of scramble, and the appearance that all involved are in some sort of cheesy Godzilla movie....(mouth moving well after the words are spoken...) :mad:

Hey Tdogg,

That phenomenon is called "pixelating" do you have digital cable? or Satelite? We have satelite and that happens sometimes when there is a thunderstorm. the signal can't get through a cloud thats a mile high. The reciever does its best to construct an image with the data that it DOES get but theres just not enough data to do the whole job. It can also mean that your dish needs to be adjusted. I don't know what it means if you have cable. call the cable guy.

Its unlikely that anyone is messing with the signal.

[keltic63]

I've spent the last hour and a half downloading the clips and watching them; because it is streaming video, it's taken a while for my dinosaur of a computer to download the clips and watch them without them being choppy and clipped.

Kucinich did a great job. I hope he can get some more coverage in the media.

Clinton, in my opinion, is playing a political game that may work for us in the long run. I'm hoping that she's making statements that are "acceptable" to the middle and right-of-middle so that eventually she can present what we all know to be fair, equal, and just. Melissa Etheridge may have been hinting at that when she asked if we were going to be left behind again (referring to Bill Clinton's presidency.)

so if the election were today, which of the Democrats would be elected president? I don't know for sure. Kucinich will have to present more info about foreign policy, economic issues, etc. in order to have a better reception by the general public. Hillary still has personality/character issues with many Republicans and a few Dems. (the "B" word?) Is Obama the frontrunner at this point? I don't hold much hope for our civil rights if he is.

[u-dog]

Is Obama the frontrunner at this point? I don't hold much hope for our civil rights if he is.

can you explain why you feel this way? I was impressed with Obama.


Obama doesn't support equal marriage at this point, but what does that mean? that he is opposed to it? or that he doesn't think that it can be accomplished in the current political climate? He was pretty clear that he believes in ful civil rights and benefits for GLBT people under federal and state law and that Civil Unions should provide equivalent rights and responsibilities to marriage. he opposes "don't ask don't tell, and supports hate crimes legislation. So I don't get why you say "I don't hold out much hope"

Of all the candidates, I liked Kucinich the best (I agreed with him on everything) but the fact is that he won't be nominated and if he was he wouldn't be elected. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are the only electable candidates of the group. Obama and Clinton are the two most viable candidates at this moment. I personally think that Obama will sell to the middle better than Clinton and will be FAR less likely to turn out the Fundy troops in their multitudes than Clinton will. This is important since there are no Republican candidates that are exciting to the fundies. so the fundies that turn out will be voting "AGAINST" a candidate and not "for" a candidate. Hillary (who I personally think would make a GOOD president) has a big bullseye painted on her chest.

AND, perhaps most important, She is TOO SHORT !

[crm3]

I'm not impressed by any of the major candidates. I think they're willing to only go as far as to get the "gay vote" but not to actaully commit to full equality. I found it really frustrated. And Gravel and Kucinich don't stand a chance at actually winning and theyre the only ones who can man up and go all the way. I don't know. It's just frustrating. I just feel like the GLBT community is aalways being used as a pawn or a swing vote not as human beings worthy of genuine respect.

[u-dog]

I'm not impressed by any of the major candidates. I think they're willing to only go as far as to get the "gay vote" but not to actaully commit to full equality. I found it really frustrated. And Gravel and Kucinich don't stand a chance at actually winning and theyre the only ones who can man up and go all the way. I don't know. It's just frustrating. I just feel like the GLBT community is aalways being used as a pawn or a swing vote not as human beings worthy of genuine respect.

Come on CRM! Politics isn't about genuine respect. Not for anybody. Its about power and leverage and influence. GLBT have way more of those things than we used to or those candidates would not have been on that forum last night. We have some power/influence/leverage we need to use it to get whatever can be gotten out of the current political situation. That probably won't be everything that any of us wants but it will likely be A LOT. Think about gay people 60 years ago! We weren't even allowed to gather in public in San Francisco for crying out loud. Now we have our own television network and the democratic candidates LINED UP to convince us that they were our man (or girl). Who could have imagined such a thing. At this rate we will have an openly gay president by 2067. (you heard it here first)

[antonyh]

Husband and I were talking about the Logo event for some time afterwards, and Mr. Husband made the following observation which ran something like this.

The fact that these candidates are on TV discussing these issues shows that the debate is over. There isn't any acceptable reason to deny gay people their rights any more. Think about it this way. They passed civil rights laws. And while here are still those on the far right who try to keep black folks from voting, civil rights are beyond debating. Gay rights is at just such a point in time. It will be a reality. And the candidates know this.

You've got an optimistic man. I agree with him with a little shaking in my boots...like when you pinch yourself to make sure it is really true.

[Daniel]

You've got an optimistic man. I agree with him with a little shaking in my boots...like when you pinch yourself to make sure it is really true.

He's a political animal, in that he follows what's going on, who's saying what, and what the issues are, all the while keeping in mind history- the thing that seems to get glossed over. He's got the big view in mind.

Keeps a copy of the Constitution at hand. No kidding. :lol:

Me? Before I met Mr. Husband, I didn't give politics a thought.

What we've been talking about lately is impeachment. The Constitution mentions it 6 times, as a remedy to a constitutation crisis, not as a crisis itself. Bill Moyers had a provocative program on it.

[antonyh]

He's a political animal, in that he follows what's going on, who's saying what, and what the issues are, all the while keeping in mind history- the thing that seems to get glossed over. He's got the big view in mind.

Keeps a copy of the Constitution at hand. No kidding. :lol:

Me? Before I met Mr. Husband, I didn't give politics a thought.

What we've been talking about lately is impeachment. The Constitution mentions it 6 times, as a remedy to a constitutation crisis, not as a crisis itself. Bill Moyers had a provocative program on it.

Do you guys believe the current president has created a constitutional crisis for our nation. Hmmm...now I am going to have to get out my U.S. Constitution and think more about impreachment.

[Zerbie]

You've got an optimistic man. I agree with him with a little shaking in my boots...like when you pinch yourself to make sure it is really true.

I know exactly what you mean. I saw that look on everyone's face on election night last fall when we watched votes on the AZ marriage amendment slowly rolling in. When I said it looked like we might win (which we did), guys ordered me to shut up so as not to make them hope. My chest literally hurt when they said that.

As to the matter on hand: I completely see what Daniel's hubby is saying, and agree with him. At this point, barring unforeseeable disaster with a capitol D, full legal equality is inevitable. The candidates know that, which is why they were there last night.

Imagine - how inconceivable was a forum like this a mere 15 years ago?? How about 40 years ago? If this degree of progress continues for another few decades, we're there. MLK was right, the arc of the moral universe DOES bend toward justice.

We'll get there. The question is how many and how painful are the obstacles along the road - and how much human anguish will it cost before we get there.

[antonyh]

MLK was right, the arc of the moral universe DOES bend toward justice.


That is beautifully stated. Gave me goose bumps. It is so encouraging.

[Daniel]

Do you guys believe the current president has created a constitutional crisis for our nation. Hmmm...now I am going to have to get out my U.S. Constitution and think more about impreachment.

Should any future Presidents have the powers that the current occupant of the White House has given himself? If we want kings, I suppose so. How is it that Congress and the people put up with a guy who decides which laws- and parts of laws- he's going to follow? And of course, there is the matter of Habeas Corpus. A thousand years of law thrown out the window.

There is also the matter of lies told to Congress and the American public in the build up to invade Iraq. Add into that the incompetent prosecution of the same.

And have we forgotten Katrina yet? The legal term for how that was managed is called 'criminal negligence'.

[wmanion]

Fox news covered a little bit about this debate tonight on O'Rielly. O'Rielly was not there but the lady that stands in for him. She asked the question (not exactly words) to the effect that "Doesn't platforms like this lower the integrity of presidential campaigns when they cater to special interests groups like this?"

[u-dog]

Should any future Presidents have the powers that the current occupant of the White House has given himself? If we want kings, I suppose so. How is it that Congress and the people put up with a guy who decides which laws- and parts of laws- he's going to follow? And of course, there is the matter of Habeas Corpus. A thousand years of law thrown out the window.

There is also the matter of lies told to Congress and the American public in the build up to invade Iraq. Add into that the incompetent prosecution of the same.

And have we forgotten Katrina yet? The legal term for how that was managed is called 'criminal negligence'.


Yes, but Daniel, you are forgetting the most important thing. As far as we know, George has NOT allowed anyone to perform felatio on him IN THE OVAL OFFICE. This is the critical test as far as impeachment goes. "No BJ? No problem." I believe those words are found in Section III paragraph 4 of the constitution. It is commonly believed that the test for impeachment is "high" crimes and misdemeanors. that is not correct. It actually reads "down low" crimes and misdemeanors.

[keltic63]

can you explain why you feel this way? I was impressed with Obama.


Obama doesn't support equal marriage at this point, but what does that mean? that he is opposed to it? or that he doesn't think that it can be accomplished in the current political climate? He was pretty clear that he believes in ful civil rights and benefits for GLBT people under federal and state law and that Civil Unions should provide equivalent rights and responsibilities to marriage. he opposes "don't ask don't tell, and supports hate crimes legislation. So I don't get why you say "I don't hold out much hope"



From the clips I watched, I felt that Obama was defensive. He had to show that he did indeed have our interest at heart, so I'm not the only one who has the perception that he doesn't. I also felt he was dismissive of lgbt people. When I heard him make the statement to the effect, that there are more important issues to consider (in response to the gay marriage question) it also made me wonder if he would support gay marriage, civil unions, etc. because it's not a priority for him.
It's my opinion, it's what I sensed as I watched and listened. and I stand by my statement that I don't hold much hope for our civil rights if he is elected. He'll throw us under the bus this time....

[antonyh]

Yes, but Daniel, you are forgetting the most important thing. As far as we know, George has NOT allowed anyone to perform felatio on him IN THE OVAL OFFICE. This is the critical test as far as impeachment goes. "No BJ? No problem." I believe those words are found in Section III paragraph 4 of the constitution. It is commonly believed that the test for impeachment is "high" crimes and misdemeanors. that is not correct. It actually reads "down low" crimes and misdemeanors.

:lol: You kill me

[antonyh]

From the clips I watched, I felt that Obama was defensive. He had to show that he did indeed have our interest at heart, so I'm not the only one who has the perception that he doesn't. I also felt he was dismissive of lgbt people. When I heard him make the statement to the effect, that there are more important issues to consider (in response to the gay marriage question) it also made me wonder if he would support gay marriage, civil unions, etc. because it's not a priority for him.
It's my opinion, it's what I sensed as I watched and listened. and I stand by my statement that I don't hold much hope for our civil rights if he is elected. He'll throw us under the bus this time....

In a way Obama is right. There are more important issues to consider. I'm not saying that our issues are not important, but relative to the War in Iraq, the threat of terrorism, the economic issues (the decline of the middle class), lack of access to healthcare, homelessness, the subversion of democracy...there really are more important issues. I do not believe for a minute that Obama will throw us under the bus. But as a national leader he has to focus on the big things that threaten our nation. I feel like we are in trouble as a nation and honestly I'd rather have a leader who could prioritize the issues.

That said, there are many law makers pulling for our rights. It is going to happen.

[keltic63]

In a way Obama is right. There are more important issues to consider. I'm not saying that our issues are not important, but relative to the War in Iraq, the threat of terrorism, the economic issues (the decline of the middle class), lack of access to healthcare, homelessness, the subversion of democracy...there really are more important issues. I do not believe for a minute that Obama will throw us under the bus. But as a national leader he has to focus on the big things that threaten our nation. I feel like we are in trouble as a nation and honestly I'd rather have a leader who could prioritize the issues.

That said, there are many law makers pulling for our rights. It is going to happen.

In making his statements in that particular forum, where the concerns of lgbt citizens were to be addressed, it appeared he diminished the importance of our concerns. So in that sense, I think he already threw us under the bus. I agree there are bigger concerns for the nation, and as those are addressed, lgbt citizens may find themselves included in the progress and improvement of those issues, but in that particular debate(?) Kucinich did a better job of presenting the issues and how he would lead the nation.

I also agree that at this point, Obama and Clinton are the electable candidates. To me, it appears that Clinton is playing a political game so as not to upset moderate-to-right voters, and Obama is not even trying to woo lgbt votes. Again, MY OPINION, which I've felt has been silenced in the forums lately.

[Zerbie]

I Again, MY OPINION, which I've felt has been silenced in the forums lately.

:love::love::love:

Sorry you feel that way - please don't stop expressing your opinions or edit yourself (like you mentioned in the other thread about moderating). Sometimes friends disagree, but they still love each other. And those mean people who aren't friends, well - we don't care what they think! ;)

[tdogg]

In making his statements in that particular forum, where the concerns of lgbt citizens were to be addressed, it appeared he diminished the importance of our concerns. So in that sense, I think he already threw us under the bus. I agree there are bigger concerns for the nation, and as those are addressed, lgbt citizens may find themselves included in the progress and improvement of those issues, but in that particular debate(?) Kucinich did a better job of presenting the issues and how he would lead the nation.

I also agree that at this point, Obama and Clinton are the electable candidates. To me, it appears that Clinton is playing a political game so as not to upset moderate-to-right voters, and Obama is not even trying to woo lgbt votes. Again, MY OPINION, which I've felt has been silenced in the forums lately.

I have to agree with Steve here. I thought Obama was a bit defensive as well, and his answers did not leave me with a lot of hope for equality. One could only hope he would put the hate crimes legislation and ending discrimination @ a federal level as a high priority, but I didn't get that sense. My partner thought Obama did the best tho.

Hillary will play her politics well, but at least I got a sense that she would definitely be working on a lot of our issues - hate crimes, DADT, discrimination, civil unions, and I also have some confidence she would handle the larger issues at hand.

Kucinech is great, his ideals are right there. My only cautious thought was, I didn't see much of a "plan" in place on how to reach the ideals.

None of the rest impressed, although I do like Gavel, not that interested in him as pres. Just don't care for Edwards, and Richardson was appalling to me.

[Zerbie]

I went into viewing this debate favoring Obama and Richardson. Then I missed the first half of the debate so I have no idea how Obama presented - often how things are said get remembered more than the content - and after seeing how poorly Richardson handled himself (was it just me or did he look nervous as h*** just to be there??) I have lost interest in him. Not that I thought he would get a nomination anyway.

It sounds like Obama's position may be very similar to Clinton's? Yes? Sort of middle-road approach to appease many and thoroughly satisfy none?

My fave person there was Kucinich. I don't think that in the society as it is today he will get the nomination.

[antonyh]

In making his statements in that particular forum, where the concerns of lgbt citizens were to be addressed, it appeared he diminished the importance of our concerns. So in that sense, I think he already threw us under the bus. I agree there are bigger concerns for the nation, and as those are addressed, lgbt citizens may find themselves included in the progress and improvement of those issues, but in that particular debate(?) Kucinich did a better job of presenting the issues and how he would lead the nation.

I also agree that at this point, Obama and Clinton are the electable candidates. To me, it appears that Clinton is playing a political game so as not to upset moderate-to-right voters, and Obama is not even trying to woo lgbt votes. Again, MY OPINION, which I've felt has been silenced in the forums lately.

I hope you don't feel like I'm silencing your opinions...just expressing my own. I wanted to share a portion of the speech Obama gave to the United Church of Christ convention:


But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us. At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design. There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich. I don’t know what Bible they’re reading, but it doesn’t jibe with my version.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/Faith-Action-Change/CXBY


Obama went on to talk about the bigger issues...the war, healthcare, immigration, terrorism, etc.

There is a sense that the culture war (gay rights, abortion, school prayer, intelligent design) does occupy a lot of national attention. Maybe this frustrates Obama who understands that we have much bigger fish to fry and both Evangelicals and gays need to get focused on the larger issues and dare I say, join hands to solve the big problems.

I also wanted to share Obama's pride statement because he personally identified himself with our plight:


"Pride Month is a reminder that while we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do."

"Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

"It's time to turn the page on the bitterness and bigotry that fill so much of today's LGBT rights debate. The rights of all Americans should be protected -- whether it's at work or anyplace else. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to be repealed because patriotism and a sense of duty should be the key tests for military service, not sexual orientation. Civil unions should give gay couples full rights. And those who commit hate crimes should be punished no matter whether those crimes are committed on account of race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation."

"This Pride Month, let's make our founding promise of equality a reality for every American."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/01/obama_statement_on_pride_month.php


Now that is reassuring to me.

[Daniel]

Steve- you've expressed something Mr. Husband and I have talked about. We tuned into the Logo event towards the middle of Obama's time and then watched him in total when broadcast a second time immediately afterwards.

What struck us was his dismissive attitude towards one of the questioners. That wasn't cool. It telegraphed a kind of arrogance. Hey. I'm fine with arrogant people as long as they are geniuses. But Obama strikes me as someone who is reaching, reaching, reaching. I know what he's reaching for, but have little sense of what he's reaching from. And that bothers me. He has two years in the Senate behind him. And...

Interestingly, I'm doing an opera with a group of African-American singers right now, and have talked with several of them about how they view the guy. What stood out to me is that he doesn't have blanket support. That's also reflected in a recent article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?ex=1186977600&en=edb71ef07b11fdf7&ei=5070

When Obama said that civil rights and gay rights were not the same, I felt that he wasn't speaking to gay viewers watching, but to those- even though they probably weren't watching - who have concerns about his allegiance to civil rights for African-Americans. Funny how that is.

In the end, I felt as though Clinton and Obama weren't going to do much for us as far as marriage is concerned. And unfortunately, there may be some truth to that. The matter of marriage is actually left up to the states, and getting Doma repealed is not likely to happen anytime soon. Neither candidiate has anything to lose by soft-pedaling gay marriage.

Hopefully, this will change. But I'm not holding my breath. I think we are going to have to fight like hell for marriage- on our own.

[antonyh]

I know what he's reaching for, but have little sense of what he's reaching from. And that bothers me. He has two years in the Senate behind him. And...


I hear you on the experience issue. We're facing some mighty big challenges in the country and I'm not sure he's ready.