Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
NavigationWho's onlineThere are currently 28 members and 804 guests online.
|
Clinton is solid, Edwards is slick, and Obama is nervous at Presidential ForumMy take on last night's history making Presidential Forum on GLBT issues? Maybe I'm setting the bar too low, but I continue to be astounded by how pro-gay the whole lot of them are, and what a sharp contrast the Democratic slate is with the Republican one, none of whom are apparently even willing to share a stage with us GLBT folks.
For some historical perspective, the term "domestic partner" didn't exist until 1981. It was Michael Dukakis, back in 1988, who was the first presidential candidate to actually say the word "gay." In 1992, Bill Clinton actively campaigned on some of our issues, promising to repeal the ban on gays in the military (and trying to do just that, until the Republican Party, and Colin Powell, went nuclear on him in his third day of office). In 2000, civil unions were barely even on the radar. And in 2004, John Kerry was the first presidential nominee to refer to gay people in his convention speech.
Incredible. It's just incredible to me how much and how quickly things are changing on GLBT issues. I also thought it was great that most of the candidates at least paid lip service to transgender issues. Talk about an issue not even being on the horizon just a few years ago! I was disappointed in Barack Obama's performance. He's my candidate, but I thought he seemed nervous, and his answers were vague and meandering. It made me wonder if he's truly tested enough for the presidential campaign. That said, I thought it was very unfair that all four questioners asked him basically the same question, about same-sex marriage, even after he had already answered it. Maybe the reason he seemed nervous was because the questions directed at him were so adversarial.
Edwards? He's slick, I'll give him that. I loved the whole "I'm gonna level with you — we've had enough doublespeak from politicians" answer, even as I felt manipulated by it. But I just can't shake the sense that this just isn't the year of a straight white man. Basically, I think Elizabeth Edwards is right: for me, the symbolism of the first black of female president is just too cool to pass up. I continue to be impressed by Hillary. Maybe it's because I'm a political wonk, and she clearly is too. But the contrast between her, who clearly has complete command of what seems like every issue, and our current President Bobblehead, is jarring. I remember when Bill became president after twelve years of Republican platitudes and banalities, how refreshing it was to have a president who didn't talk like the whole country was a bunch of simple-minded idiots. (I know Reagan worked for some people, but he always struck me as a completely empty suit.)
The point is, as much as I still like Obama, he seems a bit superficial: yeah, yeah, he's gonna bring the country together. I've, um, heard that before (even if I think Obama actually means it). Anyway, I like that Hillary immediately goes wonky. A president who micromanages and understands detail — what a concept! Bill Richardson? What can one say? I haven't seen a candidate crash and burn quite like that since the Quayle/Bensen debate in 1988, or since...well, George W. Bush practically any time he opens his mouth. The other candidates? Well, it's a little bit like when they refer to the Professor and Mary Anne in the first theme song to Gilligan's Island: they're simply "and the rest!" It seems a shame to take up so much time with what are obviously — yes, I'll say it — fringe candidates. Yeah, they're totally pro-gay-marriage. But then they don't have to worry in the slightest about actually getting elected, so why not be? More on that thought. Does anyone doubt for a second that all these folks are personally pro-same-sex marriage? I mean, come on. Every single one of them, I'm certain. But since the issue is still polling at about 32%, they can't come out and say that. If they do, that's literally all the next election will be about, at least if the Republicans get their way. So why give em that cudgel? I don't quite get the strategy there. Just like Christian fundamentalists would be insane to get the Republican candidate to explicitly promise to do everything he can to overturn Roe V. Wade (making it far less likely that their candidate would actually be elected and, as a result, Roe V. Wade would ever actually be overturned), I don't understand the strategy behind the desire by some GLBT folks to have these candidates explicit promise to work for same-sex marriage. By electing any of these Democrats over any of the current appalling slate of Republicans, we'll have same-sex marriage that much faster, and we'll have all the rights faster too. So why the insistence on total purity? There will eventually be a time to hold Democrats' feet to the fire on this issue. But I actually agree with Hillary, Obama, and John: now, when the issue is polling at 32%, ain't it. (That said, I'm a wonk. And on some level, I guess I appreciate the passion of people who think I'm a Total Sell-Out for being willing to accept anything less than Total Equality Right This Instant.) All in all, I loved it. And I just can't get over how much and how quickly the world has changed on GLBT issues. Submitted by on Fri, 2007-08-10 11:35. |
User login Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
First goal -- get elected
Your choice is obvious based on your photo selection
Two points
Interesting comment.
Two points. I did tell you who I support: Obama. And I didn't pick the photos to accompany this piece. The upload guy (Michael) did.
But maybe he was influenced by my brilliant prose. ;-)
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com
That's so ironic! As Brent said I did pick the pictures and
Here! Here!
I couldn't agree more with your take on the politico's performance, Brent (and humbug). I thought Hilary easily out-shined even Obama with her ease, comfort, and knowledge of the issues being discussed. Obama definitely has the feel of a statesman, though. I'm still not 100% sold on Hilary as a person, but I do think she's probably in the best position to be a solid ally for us. I don't think Obama is quite ready yet. That said, a Clinton/Obama ticket would make me piddle with glee.
In my perfect world, Kucinich would be electable since every time I hear him speak I just want to give the little leprechaun a hug. My idealistic heart would love to see a peace & love hippy in the White House, but we all know that'll never happen.
Edwards creeped me out. I thought he seemed clearly uncomfortable and more than a little slimy. It was like watching a game of dodgeball. Richardson crashed and burned like the Hindenburg, and Gravel, well... he seems like the kindly, old, burned-out uncle at the family reunions that everyone humors because he's just so gosh darn sweet, but a little batty.
As a side note, how much do you love Melissa Etheridge?
I know!
Melissa was adorable! She so sweet and humble and folksy and smart!
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com
I get what you're saying.
I get what you're saying. Strategically, let them shut up about gay marriage or come out against if it'll get them elected. For the greater good.
I get that.
On the other hand, it makes me so incredibly angry that coming up for gay marriage is signing your political death certificate.
I think what I was seeking
To My LGBT American Friends
I am typing my comments with some trepidation, a Canadian giving opinions on American Politics, what nerve! However, there is too much at stake in 2008 for Americans, Canadians (not to mention the other 6 billion or so humans) not to care (I fantasize every so often what the world would be like today if Al Gore had won in 2000, sigh).
I am glad to hear that Hillary Clinton performed well, I have always been impressed with her intelligence, work ethic, and grasp of the issues. To top it off she has a ruthless streak in her that is essential to any effective leader (FDR for example). I like Obama but I am afraid he has not put enough thought into his policies (perhaps 2012), although the fact he was against the Iraq war means he has some common sense and is willing to go against the flow. John Edwards could be a distant relative (we share the same surname) but he does come across as a smooth-talking lawyer at times. My big fear with Hillary is that she is a polarizing figure and Guiliani could beat her in a head-to-head race. Perhaps the Republicans will nominate some right-wing nutbar, Michael Bloomberg will enter the race, and Hillary will win the election repeating her husbands performance in 1992.
Finally I was appalled to read that only 32% support same-sex marriage. If more people believe in creationism then marriage between two loving men/women, then I am tempted to buy some razor blades and start filling up the bathtub with hot water! Seriously though if any Americans get tired of waiting for fairness and justice to prevail, they are welcome to emigrate to Canada. The Winters can be hell, but at least you don't have to worry about buying health insurance! Cheers.
Round Up
None of the canidates, Democrat or Republican, would be my first choice for president. I know the Democrats will not be strong against Islamic terrorism and that Republicans will bungle the job.
I can't trust the Clintons at all. They are very sneaky. Their dealings with China among other countries is appalling. At the same time very few people believe Hillary is authentic in her religious beliefs. That's a good thing in my opinion. This country has become so religious; not surprisingly mental illness has been on the rise for decades. I think she is the most likely Democrat to deal with the illegal immigration problem although I wouldn't trust her on that.
Barack Obama is on the same level as Hillary in regards to gay issues so I look for other things that make him different. He will undoubtly let the illegal immigration problem get worse. His record shows that he will and he has stated that he wants open the borders. In no way could I support him with his views on illegal immigration. He is also seen as the most religiously authentic. Big minus.
John Edwards is somewhere in the middle of Hillary and Barrack on most issues.
I like Kucinich on gay issues but I think he is extremely weak toward Islamic terrorism and the illegal immigration issue.
I wasn't even thinking about voting for Bill Richardson. His qualifications in diplomacy mean little since he accomplished very little and they give those jobs out to top campaign contributors. His mother illegally crossed the border to have him so he could be a citizen and then went back to Mexico. You obviously know where he stands on the illegal immigration problem.
Except for the illegal immigration issue the Republican are terrible on every issue. Rudy has been better than most Republicans in regards to gay civil rights but you know he will throw us under the bus to stay in office.
Logger load
How do you know this? The democrats have been active in the fight against terrorism. If you even mention Iraq then you'll show what a fool you are...that isn't the fight against terrorism.
The dems have voted to fund the anti-terrorism efforts, they have voted to give powers to the gov't while trying to balance civil rights and they have worked to make stronger allies in terrorist ridden nations.
Maybe if you keep saying they will be weak it will make it so? Maybe....
How Do I Know
How do I know? I look at their record. I look at what Europe (which tends to be on the liberal side) has done.
Liberals and to a lesser extent conservatives FEAR muslims because of the threat of violence. I can create an endless list of examples of how this threat of violence has affected how people live. I'll give you one. Last year South Park refuse to show an image of Muhammed and has since banned any image of him because of fear of violence. South Park has depicted many religious leaders including Jesus and continue to because there is no real threat of violence.
As I was having a debate with David Ersenstein on this site about muslims, three gay men were beaten in The Netherlands after a pride celebration by muslims.
To read more about this "wonderful" religion go to:
When South Park is your example...
I feel there is no need to argue. They refuse to show two men kissing in many primetime shows for fear of outraging the red staters so is there a difference?
Your dislike for muslims is obvious and also very misguided. You can't tell the difference between muslims and extremists.
Should I link you to Matthew Shepard? Last years San Fran Halloween shootings and beatings? The violence in Jamaica? The bashings in London? Sean Kennedy? The recent brutal attacks in Sydney? Ryan Skipper? Michael Sandy? Are you equally mad at the deaths christianity has caused in the gay community? Or even the deaths that christianity has been responsible throughout history?
PS - Do you even know who is behind the site you linked to? Hmm? I doubt it because as a gay man, which I assume you are, you should be ashamed to link anything they publish as a source.
Real World
There is a difference between programs not showing reality-based gay portrayals and not showing reality-based muslim portrayals. The threat of violence is real from muslims. They have killed people that have crossed them like Chauncey Bailey a news reporter covering a muslim bakery.
http://www.kfwb.com/pages/760878.php?contentType=4&contentId=755905
Theo Van Gogh, Pim Fortyn and on and on. BTW, everyone should read what Pim Fortyn had to say on this subject.
You think because I am only talking about muslims that I am giving other religions a pass. No, I'm not. I'm not having hateful muslims entering western countries so that there are two groups to deal with; christian and muslim. This year in Israel the government banned pride celebrations because of protests by jews, christians and muslims.
This is the rare occasion that all three of those religions come together; to oppress gay people. I don't want a god squad happening over here. I hate to break it to you but muslims ARE more likely to act on there hateful ways. Open up your eyes and see all the strife created because of that religion today.
I know who Ayn Rand was. I don't agree with what she said about gay people. It was the only place I could find an article about South Park that told most of the story of why they would ban the picture of Muhammed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism%2C_Ayn_Rand%2C_and_homosexuality
Everyone should go check out The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Real world = South Park?
I don't understand...
...all the negativity that is thrown at the Clinitons. Yes, he had to compromise on gays in the military (and the "cure" ended up being worse than the illness), and she totally screwed up while trying to bring about national health care, but that came early and was a result of their naivete about how things were done in D.C.
Does anyone really believe that we would be anywhere near having the national discourse on gay rights and same-sex marriage that we are having today if they hadn't insisted on giving us a place at the table and bringing our issues into the political forefront during their first run at the White House?
GLBTs and our issues were completely invisible and ignored by every administration prior to the Clinton's. If it weren't for them we would be decades from where we are now in the States.
This Site Likes No Republican.
There's no need to lie. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was pushed through during a Democrat unified goverment: White House, House and Senate. Democrat Senator Sam Nunn was a leader in opposition while former Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, once a GOP presidential nominee, joined Barney Frank in trying to overturn the open service ban. True enough, the then appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell did "craft" the policy, it was passed by a liberal majority congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Republicans didn't retake control of Congress, for the first time in four decades, until the session starting in 1995.
Bill Clinton didn't veto the Defense of Marriage act either.
When are you folks going to hold Democrats accountable for their smooth talk and lack of (or outright inept) actions? The "Republicans made us do it" isn't just a poor excuse, it's often an outright lie. That any of you will encourage your candidate to lie to get elected tells me you will get the president you deserve.
In your recollections of "milestones" you forgot Al Gore called for open service for gays in the military in 2000.Ugh, they just can't let Bill go
Gay conservatives make me feel all warm inside. Both DADT and DOMA were compromise measures. Bill Clinton, like Al Gore talked of lifting the ban in the military but because of social conservatives were not going to be able to get it. So to keep a promise he made to get elected he took the suggestion of Colin Powell and ran with DADT. DOMA was better than an all out ban, there is no arguing that. DOMA has actually bought us the time to make the leaps we have made with marriage in the last 7 years. LEAPS.
Democrats are held accountable but to truely hold someone accountable you have to look at the whole picture. Just because you hate the dems Duck doesn't mean everybody else isn't able to see the big picture.
Duck, with li'l Bush (mis)leading us into Iraq...
...and Gonzales doing anything to save his own ass (not to mention good-ol'-boy Scooter), I'm not sure if I'd start a conversation about politicians who are unable to tell the truth if I were you.
And as for "likes no Republicans", that sword swings both ways; where were the Republicans who were invited to LOGO's forum (the parent company of this site)? At least the Democrats care enough to show up and answer our questions.
Your blaming "Democrats" for
Your blaming "Democrats" for not doing enough? But what you're ignoring is that the old Democratic coalition was composed of a bunch of conservative Southern seats...that have since gone Republican. In part because the Democratic party was too pro-gay.
Look, you're free to hate the Democrats. But to argue that because the Democrats haven't been perfect (back in 1992! A LIFETIME ago), therefore the Republicans are okay...well, that is insane to me. And terribly intellectually dishonest.
On EVERY GLBT issue, the Republicans have been far, far, FAR worse, not just opposing us, but actively using these issues to smear the characters of Democrats.
Oh, but there are three Republicans from liberal states or cities who claim to support us? Therefore the Republican party is not wholly terrible? Well, first, they never repudiate the national party for the outright bigotry, even endorsing these anti-gay candidates, as Schwartzeneggar did with Bush. And every time they're asked to actually ACT on these issues, they don't. And when they run for national office, they retract their pro-gay stances. The latest to do so? Rudy, of course:
http://www.towleroad.com/2007/08/rudy-giuliani-w.html
And you are sooooo disingenuous to mention that Goldwater opposed Don't Ask/Don't Tell, as if the unelected former candidate, who went way liberal is his later years, is indicative of ANY Republican other than himself.
Don't Ask/Don't Tell was, in fact, passed by the Democratic house and senate, and signed by a Democratic President. But (a) it was a good faith compromise with avowedly anti-gay Republicans (should Clinton have vetoed this, and DOMA? Well, they had the votes to overturn his veto, so...). And (b) this policy was supported by virtually EVERY SINGLE ELECTED Republican (except those who thought the ban should be far more harsh), and opposed only by Democrats. Further, the problem with the policy was mostly in the way it was enacted, which was in terribly bad faith...by mostly Republicans in the military.
In the U.S., we have one party that is modestly pro-gay, including some very pro-gay members in more liberal states. And we have a second party that it totally completely totally anti-gay, almst top to bottom. McCain? Romney? Guiliani? All sold us out, as anyone with a brain could see they would.
I think it's FASCINATING how gay conservatives refuse to see context in the occasionally noble, occasionally frustrating actions of the Democrats, and yet continue to make excuses for the outrageous, dispicable actions of virtually ALL elected Republicans.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com
Out of the last four
Thank You!