Watching the debates and feel a little kicked in the gut....

[ctozrn]

So BOTH VP candidates agree that they don't support gay marriage?? I am supporting with all my heart and soul the Obama/Biden ticket so this was just a slap in the face. I know that they are the "kinder" administration to the LGBT cause but right now, watching the debate it just doesn't feel like it.

Christine

[Zerbie]

I'm sorry, sweetie.

[Alecto]

We've never had a true "friend" in the white house, and this election will be the same no matter the outcome. There's just some folks who're worse than others.

[sauu4equality]

I agree this is BS. But recognition for our relationships and equal protection through civil unions is far better than having a right wing view of gay people in the white house. This is precisely why I don't watch the debates. Biden is just trying to get votes from independents. This does disturb me because Hilary would have likely used the word "marriage" but I suppose we have to pick our battles...I have to say I really miss that woman right now...I don't understand why my other Dem friends were so against her. It is painful to hear people speak about how "great it is to see a woman making history."

Well, enough about spilled milk...there is a good read in the Advocate about Joe Biden and gay rights (link below..the lower one). He has a solid record of supporting us and, while he won't use the word marriage, he would constitute a friend in the White House (well technically I guess the Veep doesn't live there, but you know what I mean). Read these two articles in the Advocate...they might make you feel better about Obama/Biden. FYI neither of them are 100% allies, but they are leagues ahead of McPalin...

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid60227.asp
http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid60855.asp

[ctozrn]

Thanks for the links to the articles, I will read them. I didn't hear Biden even say that he supported civil unions during that part of the debate. Just for the record...I did see Hilary in an interview say that she did not support marriage but did support civil unions. I saw Barak say the same thing on the "Ellen" show. During the debate the moderator flat out asked him if he supported gay marriage and he said no. Maybe if they had talked about it longer he would have said that he did indeed support civil unions.

I guess this is the best we can get.

Christine

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

Thanks for the links to the articles, I will read them. I didn't hear Biden even say that he supported civil unions during that part of the debate. Just for the record...I did see Hilary in an interview say that she did not support marriage but did support civil unions. I saw Barak say the same thing on the "Ellen" show. During the debate the moderator flat out asked him if he supported gay marriage and he said no. Maybe if they had talked about it longer he would have said that he did indeed support civil unions.

I guess this is the best we can get.

Christine

Okay, I've watched it now.

Biden clearly stated strong support for civil protections to gay relationships including many benefits such as hospital visitation (and he listed several other specific benefits as well but I've forgotten exactly which ones,) as civil protections guaranteed to Americans under the constitution. He said he would leave the word 'marriage' to be discussed/debated by churches and faith organizations if they wish to recognize those relationships as marriage. He made a clear distinction between the civil sphere, and the sphere of religion and faith.

The way I heard it, it was a strong positive. He is with us nearly all the way. Palin's answer really disturbed me, otoh.

[Daniel]

Both campaigns have had the stated positions from the get-go, that is, both are not in favor of gay marriage. What wasn't asked, however, was each canmpaign's position on a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

On this issue they differ. Obama is against an amendment, while McCain is for it.

The different that I heard was that the Obama campaign would leave the matter of gay marriage to the States, while the McCain campaign would seek legislate against marriage on the federal level.

[nervezapper]

I think the Obama/Biden stance is all based upon votes. If they outright said they were pro-same sex marriage they would probably lose the election. JMHO

But I'll take a little progress towards the right direction over no progress at all.

[ctozrn]

Maybe I was being a little sensitive. I just heard them both say no to "gay marriage" I did hear Biden being more supportive but he did say NO to gay marriage. I know that overall, he and Obama are supportive in terms of civil unions it just didn't feel very supportive tonight. It seemed to me that he was trying to run from that whole subject. They both seemed uncomfortable with the whole thing. Maybe it is just me and my hormones....

[ctozrn]

Nerveszapper- that is EXACTLY what I thought and felt!!!

Like you, I will take what I can get!!

One more thing.....how many times do we have to hear the word MAVERICK?!?!?!

Christine

[nervezapper]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

Nerveszapper- that is EXACTLY what I thought and felt!!!

Like you, I will take what I can get!!

One more thing.....how many times do we have to hear the word MAVERICK?!?!?!

Christine

YEAH!! I'm not alone in my thinking. I think having someone all of the sudden pro same-sex marriage would be too much to fast and may push those on the fence back to the wrong side. It's taken many of us years to be comfortable with it within ourselves and we can't expect those who do not live with it to suddenly embrace it.

[Rick336]

I recorded the entire debate on video tape. Here's how the gay marriage issue was handled by both candidates word for word:



MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: The next round of questions start with you Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same sex benefits to couples?

SENATOR BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same sex benefits? Absolutely, positively. Look, In an Obama-Biden Administration there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the constitution we should be granting......same sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, etc. That's only fair. It's what the constitution calls for. And so we do support, we do support making sure that committed couples and the same sex marys are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, the rights of visitation, the rights of insurance, the rights or ownership as heterosexual couples do.

(I rewound the tape several times to make sure I heard exactly what Biden said. He actually says "same sex marys". I feel sure however that it was just a slip of the tongue and he wasn't really calling us "marys")


MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: Governor [Palin], would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the country?

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead. But I also want to clarify if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves. You know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends that even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue; some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue, but in that tolerance also no one would ever propose in the McCain-Palin administration to do anything to prohibit say visitations in a hospital or a contract being signed and negotiated between parties. But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman and I think through nuances we could go round and round about what that actually means but I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.


MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuances Senator [Biden]. Do you support gay marriage?

SENATOR BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and people who practice their faiths determining what you call it. The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil distinction, none what-so-ever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

MODERATOR GWIN IFILL TO PALIN: Is that what you said?

GOVERNOR PALIN: Your question to him is whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: Wonderful. You agree then on that so let's move to foreign policy.



Rick

[wmanion]

Palin did not go into any detail about what our civil rights should be and I do feel that Biden did. He included real estate, insurance and hospital visitation rights. I found it interesting that CNN's poll of undecideds had Biden winning the debate while Fox news had Palin winning the date 89% to 11%. It will be interesting what the other polls reflect tomorrow. The debate did not surprise me. I felt that she would be prepared because she has been studying the issues now that she is the vice president nominee and they have been drilling (not a pun) the issues into her head. However, she avoided answering many of the questions and talked about what she wanted to talk about.

[sauu4equality]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

Maybe I was being a little sensitive. I just heard them both say no to "gay marriage" I did hear Biden being more supportive but he did say NO to gay marriage. I know that overall, he and Obama are supportive in terms of civil unions it just didn't feel very supportive tonight. It seemed to me that he was trying to run from that whole subject. They both seemed uncomfortable with the whole thing. Maybe it is just me and my hormones....

You weren't being sensitive. Both camps feel like Gay Rights is not an issue that will help them to talk about. You were absolutely justified in feeling the way you did watching the debates. I'm surprised they did this given what happened in 2004 (rampant depression in the GLBT community because of overt hatred in the debates). But this is why I don't watch the debates. I'm even more worried about the African American community in this election...the media and Stanford researchers have stated and found that this election is likely to be won by McCain because of Obama's race. What does this do to a community that already exhibits the worst health in the nation?? See my post in the thread about race started today.

[Daniel]

Thanks for transcribing and posting the dialogue.

Perhaps it's my own sensitivity, but last night, I chafed at hearing Palin utter the words "straight up" and 'tolerant', the latter word said as if it was a badge of honor. The fundi stuff was shining through at that point: one has to be standing over something in order to tolerate it. One has to be better than.

And then she went on latter in the debate about the liberal elites on the East Coast.

Palin honey! Let me tell you something.

Without elitism, there would be no books in libraries, no music in church, no art, no science, no cure for disease, no electricity, no nothing!

Elitism is not a four letter word. It is the basis for culture as we know it. Don't bit the hand had feeds you. It just might bite back.

Being an elitist is not looking down one's nose at another human being. Being an elitist is being a master of one's craft- which is something you could learn from. And I'm not talking about being skilled at evading questions. I'm talking about knowing enough to answer them.

That's the real straight talk.

[sjbouza]

But not well enough I think. As to the main topic of this post, I think she gaffed a little bit with her reply to civil unions and Biden took advantage of it. He did this by "assuming" that she is for civil unions, and she has stated that she is not. She indicated this with her answer, that homosexual couple can have contracts to get the job done. I am paraphrasing. That is why when the moderator asked her if that is what she meant she sidestepped the question.

That is the point that I want to make. Is it just me or did others notice when it came down to the tough questions she just didn't even come close to any relevant answer. She was so all over the board, even at one point saying that she may not answer the questions like Washington or the moderator wants her to. Man I would have been happy if she just actually answered the questions that were asked, not just going back to how she "saved" Alaska from the big bad oil companies.

In my opinion, this woman answered the questions she was coached on well, but when it came to something her coaches didn't cover she reverted back to "talking real to the people". In other words, "I have no clue about this question but I will let Joe six pack know that I am just like him." I liked the statement she made about knowing how it is now-a-days for everyone, worrying about affording health insurance and paying their bills. Wow really, she has to worry if the state is going to pay her Governmental salary and free health coverage? I would like to have those worries too.

For a woman that grew up with a silver spoon, she has no clue about what the middle class is going through. Never has and never will. I wish she would stop talking to us like she understands. Be real Palin, you don't know what it is like to work just to pay for gas to get yourself to work.

OMG!!!! I am getting upset now. I will stop with this rant. As some of you may remember I can go of on tangents and it is all over then, you will be reading for days.

Peace everyone. Love to all,
Scott

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by sjbouza

That is the point that I want to make. Is it just me or did others notice when it came down to the tough questions she just didn't even come close to any relevant answer. She was so all over the board, even at one point saying that she may not answer the questions like Washington or the moderator wants her to. Man I would have been happy if she just actually answered the questions that were asked, not just going back to how she "saved" Alaska from the big bad oil companies.

In my opinion, this woman answered the questions she was coached on well, but when it came to something her coaches didn't cover she reverted back to "talking real to the people".
Scott

Scott,

You are are right on the money here. Polly and I noticed the same thing. If the question seemed to land on one of her index cards she answered it. If the question required independent thought or on the spot analysis she just delivered any old answer that she happened to have in her hand. It was like she was saying "Well, I don't know the answer to that question but here is an answer to a question you didn't ask"

Here is the maddening thing : NONE of the pundits liberal or conservative are calling her on this. They are all congratulating her that she didn't say something stupid. Great! You're qualified to be Vice-president Because you didn't put your foot in your mouth.

I'm afraid that the whole American electorate is just as dumb as stones ... including the media.

[sauu4equality]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Scott,



I'm afraid that the whole American electorate is just as dumb as stones ... including the media.

*echoes sentiments and nods in agreement*

Liberal media my...

[Daniel]

This writer is making the same point I made earlier on this thread, except he's doing a bang-up job. Could not agree more.

Know what? I was AoG. And so is Palin, though she's been trying to distance herself from it since the utube vids came out! And the AoG are still, as far as I can tell, very anti-intellectual. I went to Evangel College- a liberal (choke!) arts college. And the other AoG schools thought that Evangel was beyond the pale. Not bible centered enough. The pentacostals - historically- are an anti- intellectual culture. Not to be forgotten.

"The Palin Debate: How To Teach An Infant To High Five"

Michael Seitzman, for The Huffington Post
Posted October 3, 2008 | 02:19 PM (EST)

Every parent has done it. And we all have to endure it. "Watch this! She high-fives!" We dutifully and gently hold up our hand and coo like a moron as the baby reaches up and touches it. The parent giggles proudly, "She's a genius!" Listen, I hate to burst your bubble, but they all high-five. Even my dog has learned to high-five. Which leads me to the obvious....a pit bull can learn to high five.

One prominent conservative journalist says that Palin didn't learn the easy way by going to Harvard, she learned the hard way, on the streets. If I ever need open heart surgery I'm not going to go to one of those doctors who learned the easy way in medical school. I want someone who learned surgery on the streets of Wasilla. For hundreds of years, conservatives have sent their sons and daughters to our greatest universities, but suddenly they've decided to surrender those admirable values in exchange for pandering and condescending to the people they endeavor to inspire. The Republican party's contrived contempt and manufactured mistrust of intellect is not only counter to what they've always believed, but it is terribly reckless and dangerous to the country they claim to put first. To indoctrinate a nation to renounce education and intellect is to shamefully discourage and suppress the very thing that America has not only historically exalted but needs so desperately right now.

They talk of competing in the worlds of science and medicine, technology and economics and yet present us with a presidential candidate who has repeatedly shown and even admitted that he knows very little about such things, has repeatedly voted against funding for education, but will repeat at every opportunity that he is an expert at winning wars, though he's never actually won one. They talk about teaching our children to compete in the global economy and international relations and yet they present us with a vice presidential candidate who has to memorize talking points and cynically condescend to us with winks and "doggonits" in order to conceal her astounding and terrifying lack of genuine knowledge.

Is Sarah Palin really the best and the brightest? Or are they no longer interested in the best and the brightest? Shouldn't a leader be smarter than us? Shouldn't a leader be educated? Shouldn't a leader inspire us by example, be curious as well as ambitious, humble as well as formidable, gracious as well as robust, and learned as well as knowable? Folksy does not have to mean ignorant, regular does not have to mean ordinary and earnest does not have to mean frivolous. For an example of this, look at one Joe Biden. To call him a "Washington elitist" or a typical "east coast politician" is to shamelessly insult the type of American we like to claim as unique and special to our nation. Ironically, Joe Biden is the very type of person Sarah Palin aspires to be - a "real American" who tirelessly and whole-heartedly works for his country, who never forgets where he's from, and who constantly looks forward to where we should be going. This is who Sarah Palin not only aspires to be but already claims to be. But do not be fooled, Sarah Palin is no Joe Biden.

Sarah Palin could never be a Joe Biden because Sarah Palin and those like her do not aspire to transcend anything more than lowered expectations. Her foresight and ambition only reach as high as she tells you to look. The terms "Joe Six Pack" and "Hockey Moms of America" are mere code for the type of person she assumes won't aspire to anything more than mediocrity. The talent of Sarah Palin is in her ability to charm some with her folksy demeanor while concealing her stunning vacuousness. The obscenity of John McCain is in his selfish willingness to reignite a culture war by attempting to provide someone like Sarah Palin entree to an office that she should only see from the other side of the velvet rope on the White House tour.

In many ways, last night's debate was a David and Goliath match-up. Not because Joe Biden is a towering and formidable foe to a less-prepared civilian. Look again and tell me if you can tell the hero from the monster. Need some help? Goliath is the one who is condescending, arrogant, sarcastic, combative, insulting, childish, patronizing, untruthful and divisive. The monster doesn't lead, it misleads. It doesn't inspire, it frightens. It doesn't protect, it provokes. You recognize it now, right? The monster is what has dominated us for eight long years. Sarah Palin is just the brand new model.

The monster marches and devours and never sleeps and it can only be defeated by its opposite: Hope, Courage, Knowledge, Kindness, and Grace. Those are the traits we saw in Joe Biden last night. They're the traits we see in Barack Obama. But most importantly, those are the traits they see in us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_131693.html

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Both campaigns have had the stated positions from the get-go, that is, both are not in favor of gay marriage. What wasn't asked, however, was each canmpaign's position on a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

On this issue they differ. Obama is against an amendment, while McCain is for it.

The different that I heard was that the Obama campaign would leave the matter of gay marriage to the States, while the McCain campaign would seek legislate against marriage on the federal level.

Daniel is right on here. While it hurts that neither Obama nor Biden believe in full equality (let's face it, 'civil union' and 'some benefits' isn't full equality), they are against putting in any federal limitations. McCain has stated more than once, if the states (particularly his - Arizona) aren't successful in banning same sex marriage, he will pursue this at the federal level. We saw last night that Palin is adamantly against same sex marriage (and pretty much same sex anything). McCain and Palin in the white house would be disastrous for GLBT equality. With Obama and Biden, our progress may be somewhat slowed, but we will still see progress. It's a no brainer for me, especially considering I agree with the democrats on very many levels/issues.

I thought Palin at least didn't totally screw it up. But she avoided answering questions which she is obviously not knowledgeable on, and was good at redirecting the discussion to her rah rah cheers of McCain. The scariest thing was her strong statement on increasing powers of the VP. That, I think, says it all about what her intent is in being McCain's running mate. Maybe she thinks that will eventually lead to the presidency and then she can bring on Armageddon and the 'rapture'??? AHHHH!