The Swamp
-
Text size:  A A A A A

« Cheney: McCain towers over Obama | Main | Obama and public financing »

Obama: Won't ask, don't mind tellin'

Email Print Link
Election 2008
[What is this?]
Posted April 11, 2008 8:30 AM
The Swamp

by Mark Silva

Sen. Barack Obama “has been weathering a small storm lately in “the LGBT community’’ for being too tight-lipped with gay and lesbian news media,’’ The Advocate reports.

No longer.

Obama sat for an interview with the journal of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and confronted some of the central questions on the magazine’s mind – such as the military’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ for gay members of the armed forces.

“I reasonably can see “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” eliminated,’’ Obama told the magazine, though he wouldn’t make the issue “a litmus test’’ for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Obama was asked where his belief in equality stems from: “Well, it starts with my mom,’’ he replied, “who just always instilled in me a belief that everybody’s of equal worth and a strong sense of empathy -- that you try to see people through their eyes, stand in their shoes,’’ he said. “So I think that applies to how I see all people.’’

Obama, who favors repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, was pressed about why he supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples but not marriage: "I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward. ‘’

Obama acknowledged that the discussion of all of this may make some uncomfortable – but said it must be confronted. “I tell you what,’’the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination told the magazine. “Mmy campaign is premised on trying to reach as many constituencies as possible and to go into as many places as possible, and sometimes that creates discomfort or turbulence.’’

“Unlike his rival, Hillary Clinton, who's given interviews to Logo and several local papers since appearing on the cover of The Advocate last fall,’’ the magazine’s news editior, Kelly Eleveld, writes, “the Illinois senator has only talked once, to address the Donnie McClurkin controversy. But last week, his campaign offered our magazine an exclusive sit-down in Chicago with the man who may well become the next President of the United States.''

“Why the silence on gay issues?’’ Eleveld asked Obama.

"I don’t think it’s fair to say silence on gay issues,’’ Obama told the magazine.“The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times.''

See the full interview in The Advocate, and a summary of it here:

“Obviously, when you’ve got limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets,’’ Obama said in the interview. “We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

“But I haven’t been silent on gay issues,’’ Obama told the magazine. “What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience.

"When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.

“So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history.’’

So the magazine asked this: “The underlying fear of the gay community is that if you get into office, will LGBT folks be last on the priority list? ''

“I guess my point would be that the fact that I’m raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box – that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment,’’ the senator said. “Because ultimately what that shows is that I’m not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.’’

What could he do for the LGBT community?

“I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated,’’ Obama said. “I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law.’’

What if his Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed repealing the don’t ask policy?

“I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff,’’ Obama said. “Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe.

“But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy -- ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need,’’ he said. “That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.’’

Federal employees should be protected against discrimination as well, he said, “and finally, an area that I’m very interested in is making sure that federal benefits are available to same-sex couples who have a civil union. I think as more states sign civil union bills into law the federal government should be helping to usher in a time when there’s full equality in terms of what that means for federal benefits.’’

Obama also said that he has “for a very long time have been interested in repeal’’ of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Is repeal possible, the magazine asked?

“I don’t know,’’ Obama said, “But my commitment is to try to make sure that we are moving in the direction of full equality, and I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I’d like to see us lead here too.’’

Obama was asked about he and his wife both speaking eloquently about being told to wait their turn, and if they had done that they might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or president. Is that what he is asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage?

“I don’t ask them that,’’ Obama said. “Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” where he says to the white clergy, "Don’t tell me to wait for my freedom.''

“So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating.

"And I’ve said this before -- I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward. ‘’

What event or person has most affected his perceptions of the LGBT community, the candidate was asked.

“Well, it starts with my mom, who just always instilled in me a belief that everybody’s of equal worth and a strong sense of empathy -- that you try to see people through their eyes, stand in their shoes,’’ he said. “So I think that applies to how I see all people.

“Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Golden, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.’’

He was asked if prejudice against gays is more pervasive in the black community than among white Americans.

“I don’t think it’s worse than in the white community,’’ he replied. “I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities….

“I tell you what -- my campaign is premised on trying to reach as many constituencies as possible and to go into as many places as possible, and sometimes that creates discomfort or turbulence. This goes back to your first question.

"If you’re segmenting your base into neat categories and constituency groups and you never try to bring them together and you just speak to them individually -- so I keep the African-Americans neatly over here and the church folks neatly over there and the LGBT community neatly over there -- then these kinds of issues don’t arise.

“The flip side of it is, you never create the opportunity for people to have a conversation and to lift some of these issues up and to talk about them and to struggle with them, and our campaign is built around the idea that we should all be talking.’’

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

The pro Obama bias on this blog is telling. Perhaps it reflects the national news media coverage. But it's all just horse race stuff anyway.
Do a point by point discussion (letting the candidates comment) on the candidates' platforms.
That's news.
The rest is just Hilary bashing by a corporate media. And it's really, really obvious to the people who vote and get out the vote--middle-aged women.
We run the country--among the little people.
But I don't expect the Obama/corporate media to know that. You wake up with cleaned houses and baby showers organized by middle aged women, with campaign events that just 'poof' came together.
with clean undies in the underwear drawer.


Marriage should be open to gay couples, but I think Obama is taking the right approach here. The government provides the right of civil union and leaves the marriage thing to the church.


It's funny and sad watching the narrowminds defend their crusades against homosexuals, claiming they are ruining traditional family values.

No one has ever shown how being gay breaks-up a marriage or family. Even in the Catholic church, they've never said gays ruin families.

But I've heard infidelity does wonders.


The gay community has been advocating for Hillary from the beginning. The manufactured controversy shown here is not surprising - it's just par for the course.

They're just doing their part and supporting their girl - despite the eventual outcome.

'You Go Girl !'


Marriage is unconstitutional. It is a violation of the separation of Church and State and it should be abolished as a mechanism for laws. Instead, it should be replaced by the Civil Union for EVERYONE, straight, gay, bi, whatever. If certain parties want to claim that Marriage is sacrosanct and only for Man and Woman... then let them have it. Let's strip it of any meaning so it's merely a religious institution with no bearing in the political engine.

Rob H.


UNBELIEVABLE ARTICLE ABOUT OBAMA, WHERE HE GETS HIS MONEY, AND THE FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN USING GEORGE BUSH/KARL ROVE TACTICS FROM THE BEGINNING (Please use the link below to read the whole article) -- The Washington Post -- April 11,2008 -- Obama gets plenty of money from big donors too: "Sen. Barack Obama credits his presidential campaign with creating a 'parallel public financing system' built on a wave of modest donations from homemakers and high school teachers. ... But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine 'bundlers,' five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. ... Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ... The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite." They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. The use of bundlers was perfected by George W. Bush, who in 2000 and 2004 set some fundraising records that Obama has shattered. Bush established a competitive hierarchy of "Rangers" and "Pioneers," with tracking numbers to monitor fundraisers' progress and silver cuff links and belt buckles for high achievers.
http://tinyurl.com/6dtgq6


What is Obama really saying here?

Translation: Are you gay, or are you an American citizen? What is this election about to you. If youre gay and you only want to talk about gay issues, then I'm probably not your candidate. But if youre an American and want to talk about how gay issues can be discussed with all Americans, then let's have a conversation.

Bravo! I respect that he does not choose to hold the hands of various constituencies. Pandering to your audience is so... Clintonian.


Golden Oldie,

I find your comment interesting. As a middle aged woman in marketing I know I am my own demographic. We make the buying decisions and we make a very large part of the voting decisions. I am confused by the claim of bias against Hillary Clinton in the media that many people are making. I know there is mysogeny in this country and Senator Clinton has seen her fair share and then some since she has pushed forward through the lead-lined glass ceiling. I certainly don't approve of mysogeny or racism in the media, but I strongly object to claiming mysogeny or racism for what is usually simply getting called on actual issues and character traits of concern. I don't perceive that Obama is being tagged less often by the media, but if I am wrong, could it be possible that Obama isn't tagged as often because he has less to be tagged about? That would partly be due to youth and fewer years of "delightful" facts to find, but it is mostly due to an appealingly minimal amount of guile, not because of his race or his sex.

I am never going to say I am not pleased that Clinton has gotten as far as she has, because I am a woman who appreciates the success of other women, but I will never be comfortable with her many long years of skirting the edge of legality for personal gain. I don't care how tough she is, or how smart, or how tenacious, if she can't be trusted to conduct her own affairs ethically. So many people compartmentalize it and say, "OK, so, she is willing to push the limits, so that must mean she will be an unbeatable advocate of her ideas." But her ideas have consistently been guided by what is expedient and apt to bring her closer to power, not her own internal compass. I understand that her philosophy is that you can only get where you are going by meeting your opposition halfway, but I think she has confused being compromised with compromising. That is just my opinion.

Your grouping together of "Obama" and "Corporate" is strange since Clinton has more ties to Corporate America by a large margin - not that he has none, but there is a definite difference. Are you saying that the media is corporate-backed but just happens to show preference for a candidate who seems more apt to work against their interests rather than a candidate who has traditionally worked in their favor? Seems odd.

I also doubt Senator Clinton has been doing any cleaning of underwear or planning of campaign events for a very long time. Not to say she doesn't pull off a lot of mystical female behind-the-scenes magic, and I know that you were just making an analogy, but it made me think about the campaigns. I truly believe that Obama is more actively involved in his own campaign than Clinton is. Either that, or she isn't a very good manager which doesn't bode well for the country were she the one at the helm.

I guess that to me, based on individual merit, there is no question I'd support Obama because character is more important to me than feminism. The only reason I would vote for Clinton would be that she is a woman (not gonna happen) or if she ends up with the nomination and it's either her or McCain (it would be depressing how limiting that would feel, but I am not stupid). Anyway, for what it's worth.


Re: Fred Jones blog/spam. I was never recruited by anybody to donate my $2300 to Obama's campaign. I did it on my own. And no I dont work for any kind of oil company or what-have-you. I'm a computer technician for a media marketing company who's clients include both Clinton and Obama.

Ive also got some of my friends to do the same. Does that mean Im tapping into some sinister network? No. If we as people who are financially solvent can afford to make the maximum donation, and want to, can we?

Yes we can.


Re: Fred Jones blog/spam. I was never recruited by anybody to donate my $2300 to Obama's campaign. I did it on my own. And no I dont work for any kind of oil company or what-have-you. I'm a computer technician for a media marketing company who's clients include both Clinton and Obama.

Ive also got some of my friends to do the same. Does that mean Im tapping into some sinister network? No. If we as people who are financially solvent can afford to make the maximum donation, and want to, can we?

Yes we can.


powinda: What does that have to do with all of the special interest money Obama has received? No one said all of his money came from special interests; just a lot of it. The issue here is that Obama claims he doesn't accept such money. Very dishonest.


“So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history.’’

Man, that reminds of Wed's hilarious quote:

"I’ve been very clear about saying that was wrong. And nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have."

Funny, seems like when it comes to any single issue, no one's fought harder than Obama, according to Obama, of course. Give me a break.


According to Obama, Rosa Parks should have been happy to just to be allowed on the bus in the first place.

I just can't vote for someone who wants me to accept a "separate but equal" institutuion like civil union. If civil unions are so great, why aren't all the heteros lining up to get one instead of marriage?? Obama may or may not fight for gay rights- he seems kinda wishy washy about DADT, ENDA, etc.

So if I vote for a Libertarian candidate who supports full equality for gays, and then a Republican wins the White House, what have I really lost? Either way I can't get married, I doubt DADT will be changed, ENDA probably passes either way. Marriage rights will be settled by the States and ultimately by the Courts, so really no difference in the end. At least this way I can vote my conscience, instead of settling for the lesser of 2 evils.


How's Farrakhan on gay rights?
Note how the Obamas dress their girls.


Fred Jones: It is very easy to tell you are a Clinton surrogate/supporter/minion. To state that Obama's campaign is funded "a lot" by special interests is an absurd fabrication. Sort of like the sniper bullets in Bosnia.
Let me introduce you to the facts:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Obama received $250 dollars from special interests, out of $192,757,471 given.
In contrast, let me show you what your candidate Hillary and Bill Clinton received:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
She has received $1,157,939 in PAC contributions.

Seeing that you are obviously are adept at fabricating your "facts" (like Hillary), please denounce and reject your previous posts in the interest of clarity. I'm curious; were you "sleep deprived", or did you "misspeak"? Or is it just that you and Hillary will do and say anything to distort the truth, and ruin the Democrat's chance for willing the general election, because your candidate only cares about keeping her $109,000,000 income coming.
By the way, tell Hillary to pay her health insurance and campaign bills.


WeTheSheeple,


Great idea, vote for the Libertarian so that the Republicans can win and put a few more conservatives in the Supreme Court. That will boost the cause tremendously. You're brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?

Take the civil union and I will be glad to marry you to the intended spouse of your choice anywhere any time in whatever kind of ceremony you choose. I don't think any marriage should be sanctioned or not sanctioned by the government since that isn't separation of church and state. However, that isn't an excuse to offer separate but equal and cram it down your throat. Whatever the law is, gay marriage should be included in it or no marriage should.

I am convinced that most candidates who support full equality for gays are probably just trying to get your vote. I am sure they believe in the cause because they wouldn't risk the conservative fallout otherwise, but the chances of them being able to actually do anything major on your behalf is minimal. I believe Obama more because he's honest enough not to offer me what I want to hear, instead he acknowledges it's a knotty problem that will take a heck of a lot of difficult dialog to begin the changes we need. Props for telling it like it is!

You just go ahead and make sure you don't settle for the lesser of two evils, now. I wouldn't want us to accidentally make progress toward a progressive America.


Walt: I've seen the website you refer to. It doesn't account for the George Bush/Karl Rove type "bundling," about which the article I posted speaks. Read the article; if you disagree with their analysis, please take it up with them. Thank you.


Walt: I've seen the website you mention, and it doesn't account for the Karl Rove type "bundling," which is the subject matter of the article. Please read the article again, and if you disagree with their analysis, take it up with them.


Walt: I would love to answer your post, but it appears that my answer is being censored by the moderators.


Fred,

Obama has over 1,000,000 separate donors, the majority of which have not donated the $2300 max for this cycle. The "bundling" you refer to is NOT PAC money or lobbyists. Individual Americans do have the right to encourage their friends and family to support a candidate. You are trying (not successfully) to put all the categories in the same bag.
I again urge you to denounce and repudiate your inaccurate statements with regards to fundrasing.
Face it. The money is there because a huge amount of American citizens (i.e the "grassroots campaign") believe in Senator Barack Obama, despite the Rovian neo con right wing divisive smear tactics employed by Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Walt: As I've said, if you don't agree with the article's analysis, please take it up with them. It never seems to amaze me the extent to which Obama supporters CANNOT even entertain the thought that their lord and master is less than perfect. I do understand, though. Most Obama supporters began their infatuation with him when they knew nothing about him. All they knew is that he supposedly stood for "change." Now that so much is coming out which flies in the face of the "change" assertion, the Obama fans just can't assimilate it. It is sad, really.


Fred, Fred, Fred,

If the article you cited doesn't represent your views. I can accept that. Believe me, I just do not want the Republicans to win this election because of divisive diatribes, or swift boat-like tactics that have propagated since this "Kitchen sink" strategy started.
A lot of Hillary "supporters" are McCain/Republican/right wing neo cons posing as Democrats. So these posts are littered with every divisive issue that can cause a wedge to be driven through the party. They used these tactics in 2004:
http://laweekly.blogs.com/joshuah_bearman/2004/10/how_they_do_par_1.html
Along with the swift boaters, they were responsible for Kerry's defeat.
For the good of the country, we MUST change the direction that the country is going in. No true Hillary supporter could EVER support McCain.


Fred Jones And Walt

You tell him, Fred! Take it up with the propaganda spewing spin doctors who wrote the article, Walt. No need for Fred to take responsibility for extensively spreading gross exaggerations and lies if he didn't write them himself.


Obama’s Dubious Affiliations

There is no way a white man with the same background and credentials as Obama could ever be elected to any significant office in this country.

Look at Obama’s affiliations:
- Mr. Rezko is Obama’s long time friend and a major mob figure.

- Mr. Auchi is a billionaire and major financial sponsor for Obama’s rise to power throughout the past years.
While working with Saddam Hussein, Auchi made his money through the sell of arms in Iraq and by stealing money from the Oil for Food program (no wonder Obama voted against invading Iraq)
- Mr. Wright is (I don’t use reverend because he certainly is not reverend) a racist who hates America and whites and is reminiscent of Hitler, has been Mr. Obama’s spiritual mentor for over 20 years. Before the media exposed Mr. Wright, Mr. Wright was on Obama’s campaign staff as chief religious advisor. Mr. Wright and Mr. Meeks are ideologically closer to Karl Marx and Black Nationalism, than to Christianity.
- Senator Meeks who openly hates whites and gays and is one of listed on Obama’s campaign website as a major Obama supporter and backer and is one of Obama;s super-delegate. Mr. Meeks has been integral in helping Mr. Obama succeed in politics.
- Mr. Ayers of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol served with Obama on the board of the leftist foundation called the Woods Fund.
- Mr. McPeaks is Obama’s military adviser and national campaign co-chairman who claims that American Jews are the "problem." and “Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel.”

- Michelle Obama trumpets Obama as “the second coming of the messiah,” and also states that she “has never been proud to be an AMERICAN in her adult life".

The list goes on…

How can Obama’s bad judgment and affiliation with criminals and fanatics be justified?
Obama should be judged by his actions not the words his speech writers compose? By the way, it has been reported on numerous occasions that Obama has a terse and impatient personality when out of the media light. Is the role model personality we seek for the world? For our children?

Oh! And don’t forget Obama’s desire to add Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the above list. Didn’t Mussolini choose Hitler to be his friend? We certainly will be able to add Ahmadinejad to the future list of Obama’s friends as we hide in our nuclear shelters.

Had Hillary Clinton had any of the above ghost in her closet, she would have been thrown out of the election long ago.

Hey everybody - am I missing something here?

It seems to me that perhaps instead of electing Obama president, it would be easier if we just shot ourselves in our collective foot.


Walt and Gina: Please post a credible source for your allegation that the USA Today article's information about Obama is untrue. And, please make sure it explicitly references the practice of "bundling." If you cannot come up with anything, then please consider your apology accepted, in advance. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.


OBAMA: DIRTY POLITICIAN FROM THE START --
http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte


Thanks Gina. ROFLMAO!!!


OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
http://tinyurl.com/35s7f5


So Fred, let me get this straight. If I pump gas at an Exxon station, and I donate to Obama's campaign, I am an "Oil Company" contributor? What if I install satellite dishes for DirectTV? Does that make me a satellite industry PAC? What if I sold Chevys? Am I then an automotive lobbyist for GM?
Again, he did not lie. I posted in a previous post a link for Hillary's lies. Check it out, and stop the diversionary drivel.


OBAMA’S FIVE CHANGING STORIES AND LIES ABOUT NAFTA AND THE CANADIAN EMBASSY INCIDENT
http://tinyurl.com/396v3b


Fred, the post for Hillary's various "Misstatements" or lies is:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/hillary-clint-4.html#disqus_thread


Walt Walt Walt: No, you analogy is incorrect. Let's try this one: If the CEO of the company is an Obama bundler, and if he goes to all of his buddies in the industry and gets solicits them to donate the maximum $2,300, and maybe raises $100,000 from his friends, he is a bundler. It's really very simple, really. This method, as the article explains, is how George Bush generated so much money from the special interest groups without the money being consider PAC money.


Walt and Gina--a smart person changes strategy, opinion, or even their candidate now and then.
It's the hypocrisy and the sexism of the Obama campaign that sent me away.
And the ageism. Gina--middle aged women keep this country together. Go back through ALL the comments Obama's made (and I've read his books too) and see what's there.
The lack of respect for the statesmanlike Clintons, the sneering at her on stage, and in the blogs. This needs to stop. It's hurting our efforts to try to get the country back from the republicans.
Don't you care?
Or are you too busy using this forum thinking it makes you famous?
I've been involved in campaigns nearly 35 years. We have a chance now to get the country back on the right foot.
Obama could be a part of that--he could be veep. But the greedy people running his campaign want to follow him into the white house. They don't care about the fact that the wins so far for Obama are probably only about 2/3 of what's been cited. and, yes, I have good reasons for saying this, but I'm not gonna waste time here.
I'm not 'bashing' Obama. I want him as veep. I want him as president 8 years from now. but not with the people he's unwisely surrounded himself with. They brought him part of the way--but they don't care that republicans voted him jp to where he is now.
and that really bothers me.
and it should bother you, too.


Gina: That site does not discuss or account for bundling. Try again.


Golden Oldie,

So far, you haven't said anything that isn't a point of view - an interpretation of the facts. I acknowledge that my perception of the Clinton's "statesmanship" is also an opinion. I have also read all the books. Everyone's. Obama's, Clinton's and McCain's. I have watched the debates (and seen Clinton sneer hautily at Obama, so I wouldn't throw stones in that regard). I can see the argument for Clinton having some justification for staying in the race, in fact I have argued for it myself. I think she should stay in. But by the standards she agreed to set forth by the Democrats, it's a slim chance at best that she can get the nomination. She'll have to flip some of the rules on their heads to pull it off, and I don't like the idea of what THAT will do to divide the party. Based on the regulations as they stand, she was talking about the leader being VP for the person in second place. Who would agree to that? She wouldn't if it were reversed. Clinton's policy is good, but her methodology is the same thing we have been struggling with for years. I didn't like it with Bill Clinton, though he managed to do some good in spite of himself. I hate it with GW Bush, and he has done damage in the extreme. Hillary Clinton is not interested in changing what I think needs to be changed to make our country what it should be. It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of point of view and the two candidates differ hugely in that regard. In fact, as brilliant as she is, I don't think Clinton was prepared for someone with vision and her strategy didn't account for it. Believe me, if she is the nominee I will vote for her. At least her policies make sense and I would never divide the party and risk more damage to the country. I am not looking for fame here. In fact, eww, I don't want fame at all. I seldom comment but your entry interested me, which got me reading the rest of the comments. I doubt I will continue to post here or anywhere similar because it is very negative - just people who have already made up their mind and have no interest in looking at other points of view sniping at one another. It's not worth it. I wish we weren't here but sitting over a cup of coffee somewhere. Now that would be a conversation worth having! But it's not to be. Best of luck!


Clinton will not have to break any rules to get the nominaton.
that's just flat out not true.
What is also not true--that Obama's in the lead.
Republicans voted him up.
Don't believe me?
Well, if he's at the head of the ticket, we'll lose in the Fall.
Hope you're willing to get out there and work like a mddle-aged white female democrat--cuz we'll need all of you we can get.
Or we'll lose to McCain. it's that simple.
Yes, Gina, blogs are opinions.
But mine are fact-based.


I'm with you on that last one golden oldie. We will lose in the Fall if Obama gets elected.

I was very torn between these two candidates back on January. But I did my research and chose Hillary. By a few measures, I should be an Obama supporter (and I almost was). I am 39 (in voter standards that is young). I am a college graduate (affluent and educated). I am also full of hope, and Obama's speeches touched a cord with my inner optimist.

I also, however, fall into Hillary's demographic (which drew me to read this article) ...I am gay and due to complications with HIV, I no longer have the nice paying job I once held.

As Jose posted earlier, Obama is kidding himself if he thinks he is more vocal on gay issues than any other candidate, or rather kidding us.

What spoke to me is the specifics in the campaigns. The one that stuck out in my head was Hillary's plan for HIV and AIDS. A very long, specific, and well thought out plan that has been on her website since at least January (that's when I read it anyway). While HIV and AIDS is by no means an exclusively gay epidemic, were were the first to take the brunt of the bat. That bat is still swinging, and if you go out and see the community of organizations that are fighting back, you will find the majority of the aid, support, and activism is rooted in the gay community.

So when I read her plan to battle HIV and AIDS, that inner optimist came out again. That gave me hope. (If someone can show me more than 2 sentences of domestic HIV and AIDS policy from Obama, I will stand corrected) You see, all politics is about hope. When bills are passed and laws are signed it is in the "hope" that it will bring about "change" for the better. So I for one would like to know what your "hope" and "change" is about before I vote for you.

I am surprised at how poorly she is represented by people of her own party. If you want to call her a liar, fine she is a liar. But by those standards, so is Obama, and that is somehow more significant. All politicians have used misstatements to gain political advantage, and they have all made blunders. If you haven't figured that out yet then you haven't been around long enough. I am not trying to sound condescending, I'm just stating a fact. Obama is not the "different kind of politics" candidate that you are looking for. He talks of "the politics of lifting people up, instead of tearing people down", but has he really been true to that? I don't think he has. I can site many reasons, but if you read the blogs down this far, you already know them.

To bring me back to golden oldie and winning in the Fall, Hillary is the only one who can withstand the onslaught of the Republicans.


And as VP Cheney would say,
"SO?"..So we all know by
now how disgusting,sleazy,
corrupt,arrogant,lacking in
good judgement,liar,loser
Barack Hussein Obama is
as well as that Obama also
showed his racism and his
total ignorance of small town
American with his insulting
remarks he made out in a
rich fat cats fundraiser in
San Franciso.Obama owes
all of us from small towns
an apology for it as well. I say
Barack Obama is sleaziest
phony liar to ever seek the
White House. Say No Obama,


Obama is the supreme equivocator. Despite his talent for oratory, it is clear he lack passion regarding LGBT issues . . . “I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated.’’ Wow, how inspiring!! Not exactly a commitment in my book. Hillary's my president.


I like Obama's approach on these issues.


To Korha:

I do stand corrected. However, in a side by side reading Hillary's plan is hands down better. If Barack wants to address these issues he needs to get down to specifics.

Hillary's plan:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4392

To WV-DC:

I agree, what will he specifically do when he eliminated "don't ask don't tell" ? Go back to the pre-Clinton years of sting operations designed to flush out gay soldiers? Or will he let soldiers serve openly without consequence? It would be nice to know.


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "f" in the field below:

-

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Those were the days
More Handelsman
Editorial cartoons

Galleries

Iraq

Iraq War 5th anniversary

Dog

Campaign trail

Quiz

Obama

Your Obama IQ