"We are one people." It is easy to say, but we have struggled over it for 232 years. The charismatic speaker, who once wrestled with his biracial identity and found his footing as a community organizer in south Chicago, brings a conviction that gives people goose bumps. It is a vision that clashes with the hard truth voiced by Bruce Springsteen: "No secret my friend / You can get killed just for living in / Your American skin." Barack Obama knows it is hard, and includes LGBT Americans in his call to action.
Sen. John Kerry points out that Martin Luther King was 34 when he said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he drafted that creed. If Obama wins, he will be 47 at his inauguration-a year older than Bill Clinton, four years older than Jack Kennedy, five years older than Teddy Roosevelt. His toughness is evident in his remarkable coolness in the face of smears by the Clintons.
To be sure, Obama has fought back against those attacks. Former President Clinton, who switches between charming elder statesman and eager practitioner of win-at-any-cost politics, blamed the divisiveness on Obama and the media, and used civil rights veterans John Lewis and Andrew Young as trump cards instead of addressing charges that he was behaving like the late GOP operative Lee Atwater. Those who fault Obama for fighting back must have admired Kerry's month of silence after the "swift boat" attacks in 2004.
Obama notes that the Clintons' attacks began only after he started rising in the polls. One of his central messages is, "Change doesn't come from the top down, but from the bottom up." By contrast, Hillary Clinton implicitly compared herself to Lyndon Johnson, emphasizing his key role in passing civil rights legislation. What was patronizing about that comment was the implication that change chiefly depends on Washington politicians.
Obama raised a stronger vision of leadership on Jan. 20 at King's own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, with a speech of rare grace and power. At one point, after saying "none of our hands are entirely clean," he admonished his audience: "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity." This was not pandering.
Obama challenges gay people as well by refusing to respond to opponents of gay equality with boycotts. As he wrote in response to the controversy over a campaign appearance by antigay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, "We will not secure full equality for all LGBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it." He understands that our cause requires many painful discussions, not demands for silence from those whose views offend us. He shows the way by talking to churches and ministers about homophobia.
As Obama told The Advocate in October, "on issues from 'don't ask, don't tell' to DOMA to the gay marriage amendment to the human rights ordinance in Illinois that is the equivalent of what we've been attempting to do at the federal level and that I was a chief cosponsor of and then passed-there has not been a stronger and more consistent advocate on LGBT issues than I have been." Like Clinton and John Edwards, he opposes same-sex civil marriage, but he supports giving same-sex couples the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples. Needless to say, this is less than I want; but it would be a giant step toward the goal. The next few years will not bring final victory, but are an opportunity to push the debate crucially forward.
If you are not careful, life can beat the hope out of you. Some activists I know, old enough to remember the Sixties, support Hillary. They have pictures of King and Bobby Kennedy on their walls, yet now back someone more reminiscent of Richard Nixon. Instead of supporting a leader who can inspire a broad spectrum of Americans, they support someone whose idea of the presidency is managing the bureaucracy, and whose idea of bipartisanship is cosponsoring a measure against flag burning.
Some claim that Obama lacks detailed policy proposals. They should visit BarackObama.com, including barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf. Others hesitate to support him because they worry about what might happen to him. But if we are governed by our fears, we are defeating ourselves.
The times call for a leader who offers more than a continuation of the scorched-earth politics of the past two decades-someone who will do more than triangulate and outmaneuver partisans on the other side. Once again a gifted man from Illinois has come forth who understands that a nation divided against itself cannot stand, who exhorts us to summon the best in ourselves to continue the work of building our nation. I will not lower my sights because the work is hard. That is why I support Barack Obama for President.
36 Comments for “The Case for Obama”
posted by Michael C. Thompson on
You support an inexperienced, far-left Democrat for President because, just like every Democrat before him in recent memory, he SAYS that he supports gay rights? Please… if history is any judge of what will happen should a Democrat get elected, then we can expect the same thing Democrats have been giving us for a very long time now: absolutely nothing substantial. Barack Obama might not come off as being quite as much of a disingenuous populist as Hillary Clinton, but he’s still a Democrat running for President, which makes his words sound more like the typical empty promises Democrats throw our way for money and votes. Democrats almost en-masse seem to take gays for granted every opportunity that comes along… Barack Obama’s rhetoric is about as refreshing as it is every time I hear it come out of some other Democrat’s mouth.
http://michaelchristhompson.blogspot.com/
posted by David on
We’re not just voting for a President, but a Commander-in-Chief. Do you really think Obama is up for the job? I don’t think he even thinks the US worthy of defending. And Hillary, she’s the one who wrote a book called “It Takes a Village,” in which she dreamed of America emmulating France. I wonder if she meant France’s stagnant economy, ban on gay marriage and adoption, chronic racism, and dilapitaded higher education system…. Do we really want a Democrat in office? I do not want to see America turned into another european welfare state…
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Michael, the trouble with the approach a lot of gay people take to politics is the attitude that if somebody else doesn’t do our advocacy work for us, we decide to be disillusioned and cynical. Politicians generally cannot go much further than we have laid the political groundwork for them to do. On the subject of gay rights, I see Obama’s value more in how he points the way to a more productive approach that we collectively need to take. He doesn’t campaign as if he is going to do everything for us.
David, kindly quote the passage where Hillary advocated America adopting French policies. The African proverb she quoted in her book title does not support all the facile criticisms of her that it provoked.
As to Obama’s qualifications to be commander in chief: pardon me, but Cheney and Rumsfeld were quite experienced when they joined the GWB administration, and look at the debacle they presided over. At least Obama got that one right when most of us were being duped. I prefer Obama to the smug, know-it-all, overreaching chicken hawks who have presided over our foreign and military policies for seven years. Obama is a bright, thoughtful man who seeks out the views of people who disagree with him. That alone would make our country safer if he were in the White House.
posted by Avee on
As Fred Siegel writes in City Journal:
“It’s when Obama tries to show that he can also be tough that he most fully reveals his limitations. He both insists that Pakistan be governed more democratically and proposes to insert Special Forces into tribal Waziristan, if necessary without the cooperation of Islamabad. Such a move would destabilize a Pakistan rent by ethnic hostilities and already in danger of disintegration. As with Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis, Obama’s unstable mix of high-blown rhetoric and would-be bellicosity invites our enemies to misjudge us.”
posted by Another Steve on
Most of the writers and commenters on this site who supported Giuliani or McCain were cognizant of their candidates’ flaws. Richard’s piece comes off like partisan hagiography. That’s why it seems so out of place and “non-IGF.”
posted by Drew on
Gay rights must be fought for locally, not nationally. The fact is Obama can promise everything and won’t be able to deliver once in office. Face facts, the congress is divided. The situation was worse under Clinton who failed to acknowledge he was a minority president and got himself a Republican Congress.
Basically, the only gay right I am interested in, is one where my income tax form is easier to fill out.
posted by David on
I agree with Drew. For me it’s never been about “gay rights,” but INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If I want to get marrried, for example, I should be able to without the government standing in my way, or anyone else. Liberty is a two-way street. “Human rights” is just a euphamism for Big Government. I wish we could go back to the days when people actually championed for individual rights and that term wasn’t considered dirty. I recall Ayn Rand penning the phrase: “The largest minority in the world is the individual.”
And Richard, have you ever read “It Takes a Village”? Don’t you recall when the book was first published? The book is nothing but one giant laud for Europe’s welfare state. It was discussed in depth when it was first published. I don’t believe Hillary’s views have changed. As a typical upper middle class spoiled trust fund brat who has ridden on the tails of every man she’s every come in contact with for her own personal gain, of course she sees Europe as the model. She’s a free-loading moocher.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
To “Another Steve”: Partisan hagiographers do not cite things about their candidates that they don’t like or with which they disagree. I specifically pointed out my unhappiness with Obama’s opposition to civil marriage equality.
As to partisanship, a partisan Democrat would not compare a leading contender for the nomination (Clinton) to Richard Nixon. I am a Democrat, but I have a long record of not being especially partisan. I have even worked for a Republican candidate.
Speaking of Republicans, the fact that a lot of them have praised Obama suggests that a large part of his appeal is not partisan.
As for that comment about Pakistan, if you are really serious about his foreign policy chops, you should go beyond that one statement and visit barackobama.com to read his foreign policy statements. One happy contrast between Obama and the current President is that he is not dogmatic and he admits that he can make mistakes. Unlike Bush, he will not be surrounded by people who agree with everything he says. And unlike John McCain, he is not eager to start a war with Iran.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, I realize that “Another Steve” was not the one who made the comment about Pakistan. I was simply addressing other comments that had been made, and neglected to cite Avee as the source of that one.
To David: You are quite wrong. It IS about gay rights and not just individual rights, because gay people face discrimination as a class based on our sexual orientation. Recognizing that reality does not automatically constitute balkanized identity politics. I have been criticizing balkanized politics for decades. It is simply the case that to end discrimination based on sexual orientation requires greater specificity than simply declaring that people are to be judged as individuals.
As to “It Takes a Village,” I read only an excerpt. It seemed like fluff, so I read no further. I will take your word for it being as you describe. As I have made clear, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. But I think her opportunism is a much greater danger than any admiration she may have for Euro socialism.
Regarding Drew’s comment about the divided congress making it unlikely that Obama will be able to deliver anything: Obama repeatedly says that the change he is calling for will be hard. But given how polarizing Hillary is, Obama would have a much better chance of breaking the logjam. The people who call him naive are not really paying attention.
posted by Michael C. Thompson on
If Obama is nominated, he will lose handily to John McCain in November. While he sucks up a great deal of Democratic votes right now, when it comes time to decide the President the majority of people are not going to go for the uber-liberal black guy with no experience. He’s more than welcome to give it a shot – I’d prefer him over Hillary. But Obama, who has only been a Senator since 2004, I believe stands no real chance of winning the role of Commander-in-Chief.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Michael, thank you for your bracing “No, we can’t!” words of wisdom. One question: on what do you base your pronouncement?
posted by Jiexun on
Mr. Rosendall—kudos to you for your piece and your patient rebuttals. It’s a testament to the fact that IGF is, and should be, a gathering place for reasonable, thoughtful, independently-minded individuals, and not a mere font of demagoguery or partisanship. That’s what keeps me coming back…
posted by Ashpenaz on
I just don’t get the Obama thing. He stole his campaign motto from Bob the Builder. Is he going to woo Hispanic votes with Dora the Explorer? Everytime he speaks, I want to throw my tassel in the air and go, “Woo-hoo, class of ’80!” Follow his speeches with any song by Boston and you’ve got every graduation speech since, well, forever. And while having a polygamist Muslim father doesn’t change my opinion of him, I bet the swiftboaters aren’t going to leave that alone. Or his admiration of Malcolm X.
My life is so much simpler because I don’t hate Hillary. As I’ve said before–I like her. She’s the Hermione Granger of candidates–shrill, annoying, and unpopular, but she’s got her homework done.
posted by Brian Miller on
Factually, Barack Obama does not favor equal treatment for gay people.
If he did, he would present a bill in the Senate to make that happen. He has not.
He claims he is opposed to the anti-gay military ban, yet has refused to introduce companion legislation to the MREA (which has been floating in the House of Representatives for YEARS) in the Senate.
Barack Obama is a fraud.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Thank you, Jiexun.
I have wasted enough time trying to reason with Ashpenaz, so I am skipping it this time.
Brian Miller wrote, “Factually, Barack Obama does not favor equal treatment for gay people. … Barack Obama is a fraud.”
Brian, you know perfectly well that I explicitly pointed out Obama’s opposition to marriage equality. I do not have space in a short column (and I write these for print publications which impose space limits) to go through a comprehensive list, but I cited his disagreement on what is widely (not universally) regarded as the most important one. You commit a great leap of illogic from the fact that he hasn’t introduced particular bills to the sweeping finality of your conclusion that he is a fraud. News flash: either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for President. Either one of them is demonstrably better than McCain on gay issues, though he is not the worst in the Republican field. I am not looking for a Prince Charming to do all of our gay rights advocacy and organizing work for us. As I have said before, politicians in general are not going to go much further than we have collectively laid the groundwork for them to do. We have to watch them every minute, as the saying goes. And we have to press them. I take those things for granted as a reality-based activist. But the last time the Clintons were in the White House, they gave us the HIV immigration ban, Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act. I say let’s give someone else a chance. Nothing forces Obama to include gay people routinely in his speeches. Nothing forced him to admonish black churchgoers for their homophobia. Of course words are not enough. If he is elected, we will have to work not just with him but with members of Congress and at the state and local levels to gain a winning margin for things like repealing the HIV immigration ban and repealing DADT. Frankly, I am glad that gay people are not (so far) a major campaign issue this year, as they were in several previous election cycles thanks to Karl Rove and company.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
There is a funny column by Joel Stein in the L.A. Times. Here’s the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8feb08,0,3418234.column
posted by Brian Miller on
I do not have space in a short column (and I write these for print publications which impose space limits) to go through a comprehensive list, but I cited his disagreement on what is widely (not universally) regarded as the most important one.
Actually, you just reported what he *said* he thinks. And that’s the problem.
News flash: either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for President.
And there’s no significant difference between them.
Either one of them is demonstrably better than McCain on gay issues
Not when you judge them on their actual votes in legislation over the time that they’ve been in the Senate. In fact, they’re essentially identical.
One reason why gay people have not advanced, politically, in this country is because the “leadership” has been too willing to embrace empty suits like Obama (and Clinton) based on what they say, rather than what they do.
Among Democrats, someone like Dennis Kucinich has actual credibility when he says he opposes DOMA and DADT, because he’s supported legislation to repeal both.
Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, just mouth empty words. Their “positions” on the issues are meaningless fraud because they’ve never lifted a finger while in Congress to address any of the areas for LGBT people that they claim to have a position within.
I am not looking for a Prince Charming to do all of our gay rights advocacy and organizing work for us.
Neither am I.
On the other hand, I’m not willing to be seduced by (and sing the praises of) a politician whose cheap talk is very different from his/her actual record while in office.
politicians in general are not going to go much further than we have collectively laid the groundwork for them to do
That’s demonstrably incorrect. The reality is that politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties who have taken risks get ridiculed by “gay leaders,” while empty suits like Clinton and Obama get lauded for hollow speeches full of empty promises.
Gay people should provide support (in the form of money and votes) only to politicians who have earned our support through meaningful actions. Empty speeches and flip-flopping policy positions on web sites are easy to make. Real votes on the issues are a bit more difficult.
In any event, on the issues being listed — on every single one of them that you claim makes Obama “superior” to Clinton, in fact — Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have an equal record.
Of doing nothing meaningful.
Until that changes, all the “excitement” about their positions is self-deception writ large.
posted by Michelel on
Did you know that Obama refused to be on the same stage or have his picture taken with the Mayor of S.F. because he was gay and supported gay marriage? Obama does not support gay rights and I will not vote for him. I’m appalled you would even suggest it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Michael Thompson said “If Obama is nominated, he will lose handily to John McCain in November”.
Can’t imagine what gives you that idea. In a TIME poll Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain’s 41%, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1711123,00.html
Looks like Obama is the man for the job.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Michelel, no I did not know that, and I still don’t. Kindly cite some evidence and not just unsourced assertions and speculations. By the way, the mayor of S.F. is not gay.
I am not going to go through Brian’s latest barrage in detail, because he too makes a lot of conclusory declarations about Obama without citing specifics. Brian makes one statement however, with which I must take issue: “In any event, on the issues being listed — on every single one of them that you claim makes Obama ‘superior’ to Clinton, in fact — Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have an equal record.”
Pardon me, but you are not entitled to put words in my mouth. I made no such claim about Obama being superior to Clinton (and please spare us the cheap scare quotes) on a range of gay issues. The only mention I made of Clinton in that context was that Obama opposes SSM the same as Clinton and Edwards. Your decision to read something else into my statemment is not my responsibility.
There is one thing about these attacks against Obama that I find revealing: While Obama’s detractors accuse his supporters of being naive and delusional and of basing their decisions on emotions, the detractors are spewing their own negative emotions all over the place. As I say, they’re the “No, We Can’t!” crowd. What kills me is the blatant dishonesty of so much of their rhetoric. Brian surely knows that a past lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and a man who has stood up to the Clinton machine, and someone who has parlayed his community organizing skills into a campaign unlike any in recent memory in terms of its ability to inspire young people to get involved in politics, may be many things but an empty suit he ain’t.
And you can hate Hillary if you want (I don’t hate her, I just don’t think she and her husband should be returned to the White House), but to call such a smart politician an empty suit suggests that you are using a random pejorative phrase generator.
posted by Rick Powell on
Watch the Obama videos on logoonline:
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/09/video-barack-obama-rewind/
What I find refreshing about his approach to GLBT issues is that it’s based on his core beliefs about America, eg, equality of all citizens under the law, and that it references his deep commitment to civil rights. In other words, there’s no shaking that belief. It’s rooted in his own experience and in his love of the Constitution. In his book, The Audacity of the Hope, Obama admits that he may be on the wrong side of history as regards his advocacy of civil unions as opposed to marriage. In other words, he has doubts about his interpretation of the law and his faith, but not about the foundations, which compel him to insist on equality. This is why I trust him. Commitment to the basics but also educability and humility.
In these videos, he also stresses the personal side of the achievement of GLBT equality, the fact that Americans, whether Republicans or Democrats or whatever, they all have gay friends and family members; so why the disparity between the politics and the reality? So for Obama, it’s also a call to reject fear, both in the life of the closeted gay man or lesbian, and in the life of the Republican who loves hanging out with his gay friends and yet supports politicians far to the right of his own beliefs.
Only Obama seems to fully understand the organic connection between politics and personal struggle that defines the legacy of the civil rights movement. They both need to move forward together or nothing will change.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Thanks, Rick. A key part of Obama’s message is that in order to address our nation’s problems, we need to think of and approach our politics differently. The so-called experienced hands have done enough damage. Obama is an alternative to sending another person to the White House who is convinced that bellicosity is the first and only response to all the problems of the world (as if it has worked well for us), or building a bridge back to the 20th Century.
posted by Larry on
There is no way in hell I could ever vote for a Democrat. They are way too anti-American and socialist. I’d rather break bread with a conservative homophobe than a socialist. Socialists are subhuman egomaniacs.
posted by Hank on
“Democrat’s are way too anti-American and socialist. Socialists are subhuman egomaniacs.”
I for one always enjoy the reasoned discussions on this site.
posted by DW on
Well put, Mr. Rosendall, and thanks for the link. Side question, though:
How did you find the link to that list of issues?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
I looked on BarackObama.com and can’t find it.
–Thanks
posted by Brian Miller on
Did you know that Obama refused to be on the same stage or have his picture taken with the Mayor of S.F. because he was gay and supported gay marriage?
Democrats seem determined to make the same mistakes they’ve made, repeatedly, over this election. Obama is an empty suit.
“If Obama is nominated, he will lose handily to John McCain in November”.
Can’t imagine what gives you that idea. In a TIME poll Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain’s 41%, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each.
Yes, and 6 months ago, those same polls showed Obama losing handily to Hillary Clinton by over 13% come Super Tuesday.
Once Obama is the Democrats’ front-man, the Republicans will open up their full-bore attack and Obama will fold like a cheap suit. Apart from his hollow and laughable “inspiring” rhetoric, Obama doesn’t have much “there” there.
He certainly hasn’t taken any positions or made any real votes that distinguish him for gay voters who aren’t predictable shills for the Democratic Party. Get back to me when he does the bare minimum on a non-controversial issue, such as introducing a companion bill for the MREA in the Senate.
The reality is, on actual votes of note — positions backed by *action* — there’s literally no difference between McCain, Clinton and Obama. Nor is there likely to be.
posted by Bobby on
Another pro-Obama article, Jesus, what is this fetish with Obama? Oh I know, he’s somewhat sexy and he’s an excelent speaker (I would have said “articulate” but when you call a black person articulate, you’re accused of racism, so I won’t do that).
Never mind what his actual policies are, such as closing Guantanamo, health insurance for everyone, pulling out of Iraq. He’s just so cute, and if you mention that he’s associated with racists fucks from the NAtion of Islam, you’ll get accused of being a racist yourself.
Sure, “Change We Can Believe in.” Right. It seems like the same old bullshit to me.
posted by Jeff on
This is supposedly a free country, so people are free to follow any political candidate of their choice. That said, it is dismaying that some of you are more than happy to follow a silver-tongued serpent just because he makes the correct noises about people who happen to be homosexual. This man has a track record of refusing to make tough calls in his political career (except when he sued potential opponents in Illinois to keep them off a ballot for a job he seemed to want), so why would he be so inclined to stick his neck out for any of us? He’s non-hostile to us because some of us have scads of money and not much in the way of common sense, so some of us are easy marks for his bagmen. I will give most of the posters here credit, though–none of you have shown the fawning sycophancy that Sullivan has on his site (which has now become stomach-churningly unreadable between the “Obama is fabulous”, “Hillary Clinton needs to be squashed like a bug”, “Huckabee is a religious zealot”, and “McCain is sucking up to Christianists” post).
For those of you so inclined, by all means vote Obama. You obviously desire some sort of appearance of something new. However, keep one thing in mind–when you ask for something, then you need to be FULLY prepared for the results, because you will get what you asked for, but not in the manner you wanted it. The proof will be in the pudding come the 2010 midterms–IF Obama wins this fall (just because the Bradley Effect hasn’t shown up so far does not mean it won’t show up, period), he WILL overreach, he WILL cause the Democrats to lose seats, and he WILL face a hostile opposition party. Triangulation will return, and I honestly think he won’t be as good at it as Bill Clinton was.
Just a thought.
posted by Jeff on
One more thing–I noticed earlier up this page that someone mentioned DADT. I have a bit of a personal interest in that, so if you will permit me, I’d like to make a comment on that. IF Obama is elected, and IF he consigns DADT to the garbage can, then do you know what you have? You have the original ban. All DADT did was to state that as long as you kept your mouth shut, you were supposed to be left alone. Should Obama chuck it, then not only can the DoD go back to asking if you are homosexual on enlistment papers, they can also go back to asking you to your face once you are in the service. Obama can talk all he wants about ending the “discrimination against gays in the military”, but in the end, he cannot do anything. The guidelines governing this subject are in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it is Congress who decides what goes in or comes out of it. So, I guess that means Congress ends the ban, and not Obama Christ Superstar.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Jeff, you have it backwards. DADT was passed by Congress. Obama is not claiming to be able to repeal it by fiat. He knows he has to work with Congress. I just saw him yesterday talking about getting high-ranked military folks like Shalikashvili make the case for repealing the ban on gays in the military. And there is about zero chance that everyone working on this will have their brains fall out of their heads and settle for repealing one bad policy only to leave the other in place. Obama is making the same case that Frank Kameny does: the military gay ban harms our military readiness. Obama specifically cited the gay Arabic linguists.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby wrote, “if you mention that he’s associated with racists fucks from the NAtion of Islam, you’ll get accused of being a racist yourself.”
No, I’ll just say you’re misinformed.
DW claims not to be able to find that LGBT issues page on the barackobama.com website. First of all, if you copy and paste that URL into your browser window, you’ll get the page just as I said. If you want to find it from the website’s main page, click on “people” and look for LGBT. But I gave you the direct URL, which I have just tested again.
Brian talks about Obama being an empty suit (plain nonsense, as I’ve already discussed), and says he’ll “fold like a cheap suit” in the face of Republican attacks in the general election. I see no evidence of that, considering how well Obama has held up in the face of attacks from the Clintons. I have long advised people not to underestimate Hillary Clinton; the same thing should be said of Barack Obama.
posted by Brian Miller on
IF Obama is elected, and IF he consigns DADT to the garbage can, then do you know what you have? You have the original ban.
Incorrect. The “original ban” was a military ordinance, which can be overruled or repealed by the president as the commander in chief. All DADT did was transform the ban from a commander’s whim into a statute (i.e. solidify it).
The guidelines governing this subject are in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it is Congress who decides what goes in or comes out of it.
Incorrect. Congress does not create or enforce the UCMJ — that’s the responsibility of the administration. Congress created the DADT statute using its plenary funding powers — i.e. making funding conditional on the implementation of the Frank/Nunn/Clinton anti-gay “compromise” statute.
A repeal of the anti-gay statute could easily be followed by a presidential order to eliminate the old anti-gay military policy. Of course, that would require a repeal of DADT to pass Congress.
So far, Nancy Pelosi, the “liberal” Speaker of the House, has blocked the legislation from coming to the floor of the House (although it has been tabled and has cosponsors). In the Senate, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and numerous other Democratic “leaders” have ignored calls for them to introduce companion legislation in the Senate.
Obama’s “feelings” on the law as a presidential candidate are thus irrelevant. If he (or Clinton) was serious about getting the law into gear, one of them would have introduced companion legislation to MREA years ago. All the talk about the ban from those two amounts to lots of hollow words, signifying nothing other than a cynical effort to drain further cash from LGBTQ voters and con a few more primary votes between now and the Democrats’ convention.
posted by Bobby on
“No, I’ll just say you’re misinformed.”
—I am not misinformed. It’s common knowledge that his church pastor gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. It’s common knowledge that his pastor has made controversial statements against gays, jews, etc. In this country we do judge people by whom they associate with.
What’s sad is that because the media is rooting for Obama, we rarely get to hear the truth. Last night Nightline did a segment on Hillary vs. Obama, nothing negative was said about Obama, but they did mention that Hillary ran negative radio ads against Obama. And then they say Fox News is unfair and unbalanced. Show me the fucking balance on ABC’s Nightline? I watch that show every night, and I’m waiting for them to say something negative about Obama. For god sakes, there has to be something negative to say about Mr. Popularity. NBC is even worse, they had a host accusing Hillary of “pimping” her daughter and a reporter said that the enthusiasm at Obama’s political rallies was infectious and it was hard for him to remain objective. The anchor host complimented him on his remarks. If he had said that at a republican rally, he’d been fired immediately.
posted by Avee on
Obama is the biggest con man since Harold Hill arrived in River City. And not just on gay issues. He has shown no leadership on any major initiative in the Senate, and scant leadership in the Illy legislature (leading opposition to very much needed workplace flexibility rules for hide-bound unions was about it).
When Obama doesn’t have a teleprompter, he even loses his golden, matinee-idol rhetorical skills, and sounds like the old-line partisan lefty he really is behind the mask.
But he’s soooo cute. Hey guys, let’s all vote for the hottie!
posted by Bobby on
The latest scandal with Obama is that one of his offices in Texas has a huge poster of a Cuban flag with Che Guevara in the middle, the poster is bigger than his face.
I saw a report about it on the Baily program, the host is a bisexual moderate on a Spanish TV station. So the questions this incident brings are:
1. Does Obama support Che Guevara? A man who murdered thousands without the benefit of a trial. And I’m not talking about military battles here, I’m talking about civilians and anyone who didn’t agree with Che Guevara’s vision of the world.
2. Does Obama have wacky people in his staff that did this without his knowledge?
If #2 is the case, Obama has to apologize. If the answer is #1, then I’m really worried.
posted by dalea on
Hillary lead the procedural fight that kept the anti-gay marriage amendment from coming up for a vote. DADT at least gave gays in the military honorable discharges, which was a great advance at the time. She also had openly gay staffers going back to AR. So she has some claims on gay votes. Keeping the amendment in the bag really was a good thing.