Obama speaking to LGBT Americans

[Zerbie]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/02/barack-obama-wr.html

[Vanessa White]

Strategically, I know that Barack Obama needs to do this. However, it seems like a genuine message. Repeal of DOMA, in my mind, is nonnegotiable. Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is nonnegotiable. Civil unions vs. equal marriage: his position on that is consistent with what he has said all along. I need to read her site, but last I checked Hillary has not even directly addressed the needs of the LGBT community. Has that changed at all?

If she wins the nomination, I will certainly support her. However, she needs to start speaking to us directly. I feel very firm in that.

[Daniel]

but....I think it's worth mentioning here.


As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

As I read it, Obama is trying to appeal to both conservative and liberals alike. Something for everyone. One one hand, he says that civil unions are the way to go, but that he won't stand in the way of States if they legislate civil marriage. As I see it, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Mind you, Hillary is saying much the same thing, which is something this community should be mindful of: they both need educating about gay marriage.

Separate is not equal. And as a black man, you would think that Obama would know that. But apparently, he doesn't. At least, not yet.

Think of it this way: if marriage was a water fountain, he is telling us that he 'believes' that we should have a separate one.

[Vanessa White]

What I would REALLY like the opportunity to do is to be present at one of their town meetings (if they were to do anymore) or debates, and publicly ask Hillary or Barack directly about equal marriage, and how they can dispute it if we are talking a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, not a RELIGIOUS issue. I wish that I would have that opportunity.

Word is out, that Hillary is to be in my neck of the woods today, Scranton to be exact, but yesterday her campaign would not confirm it. Would love to see her in action.....

[Daniel]

What I would REALLY like the opportunity to do is to be present at one of their town meetings (if they were to do anymore) or debates, and publicly ask Hillary or Barack directly about equal marriage, and how they can dispute it if we are talking a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, not a RELIGIOUS issue. I wish that I would have that opportunity.

Word is out, that Hillary is to be in my neck of the woods today, Scranton to be exact, but yesterday her campaign would not confirm it. Would love to see her in action.....

If you see her....I hope you can nail her down on the issue. That said, the nuance you rightly address it lost on most people: my sense is that both candidates are dealing with the matter of religious vs civil marriage by going for civil unions. It keeps the fundies as bay.....somewhat...and gets votes.

Both canditates are afraid of pissing off religious conservatives. Funny how they want their vote and the gay vote too. Hey....I'd want eveyone's vote if I was running. But you know what? Though I am aware that it's all 'politics', this dog doesn't want any old bones thrown his way. Civil Marriage? No way! My piece of paper from Canada is the real deal- thank you very much. And I'm working on my State recognizing it (NYC does- actually).

And I'm sorry U-dog, I don't think we have to 'wait' to find out what these candidates 'really' think. I'm way beyond hoping and praying that people might think better of us that what already comes out of their mouths right now- especially politicos.

The future is now for God's Sake!

Actually, I don't expect a damn thing out of these candidates as far as GLBT issues are concerned. As a community (such at it is) we will stand in line and lobby like all the other lobbyists.

The only difference between left and right in this election? We might be able to get something done at the end of the day because those listening have a more liberal agenda (be the change you seek).

That said, the country is still bloody conservative- anti-gay marriage amendments in a majority of States.

We have a long up-hill battle ahead of us.

And last I heard, "Rights' aren't handed out for being good boys and girls. We are going to (and have had to in the past) work long and hard for them. We are going to have to do the nonviolent resistance thing with either candidate, though they think they are our friends. Why? Because real friends (us) tell their friends (them) when they are dead wrong.

This thing about waiting for people to wake up in their second term is like Waiting for Godot.

[Vanessa White]

If they are not awake, alert, or aware enough to know what is the most just and equitable way to handle the LGBT community, so much so that we need to wait, tough. I ain't waiting for them to decide when they are "comfortable" and "brave" enough to speak up. That is just another form of cowardice, in my mind. Maybe they see it as a way of self-preservation, I just see it as cowardice. They can prove themselves to be worth their salt by speaking up, and showing themselves to be a candidate that I can truly believe in. They really have nothing to lose by speaking up, yes a few votes. But I don't ever think that integrity is worth trading for popularity. :mad:

[Vanessa White]

"Senator Obama: I want to begin by saying how strongly I am moved and inspired by your command of the spoken word. When I hear you speak to a crowd, or a news reporter, or a citizen like myself, I feel impassioned to get involved and to remain hopeful. However, I have learned over time to also be cautiously optimistic about words that are spoken. I will honestly tell you that I am a firm Democrat, yet am conflicted about whether you or Sen. Clinton is the best person for our nation's highest position.

I am a lesbian with a partner of twelve years, and we are raising a daughter. Sure, the concept of marriage, which I will call it purposely, has always been considered to be for heterosexual couples only, in name and in instilled rights that come with it. However, civil unions just don't do it for me. Marriage or nothing for gays and lesbians, is what I say. To have civil unions is to say that I am not, that we as a community, are not worthy to have marriage. I don't know if that is what you are saying, but by encouraging our community to want civil unions, and to say that state government can give us marriage if they want, to me is unacceptable. We have partners, and families, and needs to have stability and security in our lives. We deserve it, we have a right to it. I believe that to consider an amendment to any state constitution, or to our country's constitution, is absolutely a crime and totally unnecesary. Pennsylvania wants us to consider an amendment, even though marriage, heterosexual marriage that is, is protected here. The legislature just wants to make sure that we can't be acknowledged here. Really, what is the fear about? That our existence is somehow unfavorable to God? That we are going against the Bible? Or is it more subtle than that, that our presence makes others' uncomfortable in considering that we deserve a place at the table? I really believe that you, Senator, can identify with that position from a racial point of view. To allow LGBT persons an EQUAL place at the table is all there is for us, it is right and fair and just. I would appreciate any opportunity to discuss this with you further, or to participate in a town meeting forum if I would be able to here in Pennsylvania. "

[keltic63]

now who's courageous? ;)

[Vanessa White]

I appreciate that point, udog, and it may well be accurate. However, I am really cutting myself short, and my LBGT community, if I don't call them to task in the process. I really enjoy aspects of both democratic candidates, but they rarely even say the words gay or lesbian. They may meet with challenges, but unless they are willing to at least start openly speaking the language, than it rings hollow with me. I need much more than that from my candidate. I may never get it, but I won't stop trying at least. I believe to stop trying is "settling" for what a candidate may throw our way, and I am sick of the crumbs from the table. SICK OF IT. :mad:

[pnggrad79]

Thanks Vanessa. The time has come for Obama to put his money where his mouth is. I like the guy and think he should be president. But gay rights and the push for full inclusion into AMerican society is long overdue. I am glad you wrote that to him. I posted something similar on his website.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I think the lesson of M.L. King and his relationship to the Kennedy's and Pres. Johnson is that we have to put just as much pressure on our straight allies and the "moderates" and "fence-sitters" as we do on those who out & out oppose us.

I suspect both Clinton & Obama know what justice for LGBT people would look like, but like nearly all politicians, they are afraid of getting too far ahead of public opinion. They also need to be made afraid of dragging their feet.

Good for you, Vanessa!

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

In the present, a candidate can either be courageously pro-GLBT, spend a gazillion dollars and perhaps live to run again another time ... or they can be careful and circumspect in their support for GLBT issues and perchance become the president.

All I'm sayin is that in order to know who to vote for you need to examine the record and listen carefully to how they parse their sentences if you want to know which candidate will be the best candidate for GLBT people and issues. In 2008, a candidate who says "I believe in gay marriage" is likely NOT going to be the president. There may in fact BE a candidate or two who believe in gay marriage, but if so... we will need to GUESS or at least DEDUCE who they are cuz they are unlikely to say so.


Here's a record worth noting....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?hp

Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role



Mr. Obama took few bold stands and diverted little from the liberal orthodoxy he had embraced in the Illinois Senate. His voting record in his first year in Washington, according to the annual rankings by National Journal, was more liberal than 82.5 percent of the Senate (compared with, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s 79.8 percent that year).

He worked with Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and one of the most conservative in the chamber, to establish a public database to examine government spending after Hurricane Katrina.

But for the most part, he stuck to party lines; there were few examples of the kind of bipartisan work he advocates in his current campaign.

He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war — he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field.

His most important accomplishment was his push for ethics reform. Party leaders named him their point person in 2006, and when the Democrats assumed the majority in Congress in January 2007, Mr. Obama and Mr. Feingold, a longtime Democratic proponent of ethics reform, proposed curtailing meals and gifts from lobbyists, restricting the use of corporate planes and requiring lobbyists who bundle donations to disclose individual donors.

Colleagues fought back hard.

Mr. Obama’s determination not to back down, Mr. Feingold said, “struck me as an example of someone showing real guts.”

Of course, he added, “He was not any freshman. He was Barack Obama.”

To others, though, the mismatch between Mr. Obama’s outside profile and his inside accomplishments wore thin. While some senators spent hours in closed-door meetings over immigration reform in early 2007, he dropped in only occasionally, prompting complaints that he was something of a dilettante.

He joined a bipartisan group, which included Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Mr. Kennedy, that agreed to stick to a final compromise bill even though it was sure to face challenges from interest groups on both sides. Yet when the measure reached the floor, Mr. Obama distanced himself from the compromise, advocating changes sought by labor groups. The bill collapsed.

To some in the bipartisan coalition, Mr. Obama’s move showed an unwillingness to take a tough stand.

“He folded like a cheap suit,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a close ally of Mr. McCain. “What it showed me is you are not an agent of change. Because to really change things in this place you have to get beat up now and then.”

and....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20afghanistan%20record&st=nyt

Democratic Rivals Clash Before Pivotal Primaries

Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama battled over national security and trade in a frantic burst of last-minute campaigning on Monday as Mrs. Clinton accused Mr. Obama of deception and new evidence of discord surfaced within her own camp.

With less than 24 hours to go before voting in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released a television advertisement accusing Mr. Obama of being AWOL from his chairmanship of a Senate oversight committee on the forces fighting in Afghanistan. “He was too busy running for president to hold even one hearing,” it said.

For a fuller context, read this....I've quoted some but not all of the article.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/2/17630/15823

The fact that Barack Obama has not called a single policy hearing for the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs since becoming its chair in January 2007 has been percolating for a while, but gained prominence last week when Hillary Clinton brought it up in the debate in Ohio. While the subcommittee has jurisdiction over a wide range of issues, the immediate context was Afghanistan, and the subcommittee's role in overseeing U.S. relations with NATO, which is playing a critical role there. Obama's response was that he's been busy campaigning since becoming chair, but that his position on Afghanistan is clear:

SEN. CLINTON: But I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.
You have to look at the entire situation to try to figure out how we can stabilize Afghanistan and begin to put more in there to try to get some kind of success out of it, and you have to work with the Iraqi government so that they take responsibility for their own future.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan.

This struck me as a surprisingly weak response to an issue that has been out there for more than a month. In Obama's defense, some folks on the blogosphere responded that (1) a junior senator doesn't have much influence anyway, (2) congressional committees and subcommittees are a waste of time, (3) nothing much is happening in Europe, and most convincingly to me, (4) while NATO is under the jurisdiction of Obama's subcommittee, Afghanistan itself is not--it can be addressed either from the Foreign Relations Committee as a whole, or John Kerry's subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs.

New from The Hill

As a follow-up to that, The Hill reported that Obama's attention to Afghanistan outside of his own subcommittee is, shall we say, sparse:

Obama absent at Afghanistan hearings
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 03/01/08 11:17 PM [ET]
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has come under fire about his readiness to be commander-in-chief, missed two of three Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Afghanistan since joining the panel.

Obama has said the U.S. should have stayed focused on fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan while repeatedly criticizing his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) for their votes in favor of a resolution backing the Iraq war.

But since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in Afghanistan, a country he has never visited.

Obama was absent from a January 31 meeting this year, and also was not present for a hearing on Sept. 21, 2006. He did attend a March 8, 2007 hearing on a new Afghanistan strategy.

On Feb. 15, 2007, Obama also missed a committee hearing on U.S. ambassadors to Iraq and Afghanistan.



Obama continually touts his initial and prescient opposition to the war in Iraq and the subsequent distraction away from Afghanistan. He has a right to do this as a candidate. But he has shown very little actual legislative interest in Afghanistan, even as he is calling for more American troops to be sent there. Not only has he not used his own subcommittee to educate himself, the Senate, and the public on NATO's role in Afghanistan, he apparently has also not taken advantage of opportunities on the full Foreign Relations Committee as well.

(I should note that all the information I have on this is from the article. If there is good counterbalancing information, please let me know.)

The broader concern.

Somehow we as a voting public have arrived at a mentality that in running for President, it's an advantage to have less experience and less understanding of government than more. Candidates are forever running as outsiders and not having been drawn into the failed ways of Washington. For whatever reason, for what is by far the most important and complicated job in the world, we've decided that the more time you've spent learning about it, the less qualified you are.

Charisma is great. But in my mind, that isn't enough. And while Obama was 'on the job', he failed at availing himself of doing substantive work. That speaks for itself. And not being a one issue (Gay Rights) voter, I think this is very important.

Ok. Let's turn the situation on it's head. I'll agree for the sake of argument that Obama thinks the world of gay people and is ready and willing to do all that he can to achieve equal rights across the board.

Sure. You can say that Bill Clinton tried and failed with Don't Ask Don't Tell etc. But at the end of the day...

At least he tried -and stood up- and counted for something. And Hillary. She learned her lesson regarding healthcare.

The record of the Senator from Illinois is way to thin for me to bet on at this point.

You know what? I think we learn far more from our failures than our successes. And as I see it, Obama hasn't risked any failures yet. So what has he learned?

Good question.

But you know what the real rock in the road is for me?

Healthcare.

I had to go to Canada and get married (again.....and am glad we did it) and then work with my union to get my employer to get my spouse covered.....it took that piece of paper and a couple of lawyers to do it. And I spent real money on that. As a result, at least 15 other colleagues were able to sign up their spouses. No small matter.

Clinton's plan covers everyone. That is......everyone. Obama's plan leaves out 15- 20 million.

No small matter.

Dealbreaker as far as I am concerned. And we're talking about Gay Rights? Oh Boy!


Ok......part fact, part rant on my part. Don't think I will post about this subject until November.

Promise. No fingers crossed. I'm boring myself already.

[Vanessa White]

I received this email on Saturday:

"
Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America with your thoughts on
LGBT rights. We appreciate hearing from you.

Senator Obama supports economic, social, and legal rights for gays and lesbians. He
supports full civil unions, expanding hate crimes statutes, fighting discrimination at
work and in housing and other places of public accommodation, and wants to increase
adoption rights. He opposes any Constitutional ban on gay marriage, opposes the Defense
of Marriage Act, and opposes the current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the
military, which weakens us in a time of global challenges.

Barack is a global leader in the fight against AIDS. He traveled to Kenya and took a
public HIV test to encourage testing and reduce the stigma of the disease. In late 2006,
Barack Obama worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act, one of the largest sources of
federal funds for primary health care and support services for patients with HIV/AIDS.

Senator Obama has consistently supported LGBT rights, and will continue to work for an
open, tolerant society where people of all sexual orientations are protected and their
contributions are valued. Thank you again for writing."


Sincerely,

Obama for America

I didn't expect a personalized response, although that may have been more effective, because what they must have done is just looked at the subject matter of my email and spit out what his website says about LGBT issues. So, the question was not answered. Again, I really did not expect HE would be answering it; I guess I HOPED for a bit more than this.....

Let's see tonight what Hillary has to say. I may send off her campaign an email as well.....