Is this fair? Is this accurate?"

^ I think Hillary's campaign started going downhill when Bill got involved. i also think the way the media is treating her isn't any better or worse. if it seems worse, i think she and her campaign bring it on themselves. plus, didn't Hillary whine a week ago or whatever about how she is treated in debates? imagine if she WAS president and had bigger issues to deal with. PFT.

have not run the best of campaigns.  Coupled with Barack Obama's charisma and coolness under fire have me believing that he will get the nomination barring an unforseen disaster.

Either one would be better for LGBT people than a Republican administration and its' "immoral minority" supporters.

Cheers

JBE

How can people support Hillary and simultaneously support equality? I don’t get it. Hillary supports gay civil unions (with equal rights as "heterosexual" marriages). Her philosophy is separate but "equal" is acceptable; she supports a segregation! See the video on YouTube titled "Visible Vote Clinton Part 1":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMhPfG40VFs

Start at time 5:20 to see answer to gay marriage question. Clinton doesn't support gay marriage.

Also, she doesn’t support universal publicly insured healthcare. She wants to use public tax money to buy health insurance to people who can’t afford it. This is not sustainable. The greedy, heartless health insurance companies will drive up costs which will drive up your taxes. 

Remember, Hillary supported the Iraq war. As well, I don’t hear her talking about environmental sustainability, the negative influence of the industrial military complex, the unequal distribution of wealth or anything else important.

I don’t know why anyone supports Hillary! I’m not a fan of Obama either but at least Obama hasn’t had as many chances as Hillary to prove himself and let us all down.

If you feel the media shines the light more on Obama than Clinton it’s probably because we need to know more about Obama to make up our mind about him. But Hillary, we all know her and from what we know we shouldn’t like her.

How come no one talks about how the media ignored John Edwards and probably that’s why he didn’t do as well. What about Dennis Kucinich (who I support) or Mike Gravel? They were completely ignored and also they don’t have as much money as Clinton whose campaign probably spent the MOST MONEY! Why should someone with so much financial backing need any more attention? The public needs to learn more about Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and maybe John Edwards (I know he dropped out) not more Hillary propaganda!

And in my opinion, it’s much more radical and almost impossible to have a social democratic American President than it is to have either a woman or a black man. I try to judge people on their POLICIES, not on their race or gender as we all should! More important than having a woman president is having a president that supports women’s rights. More important than having a black president is having a president that supports racial equity (which is what leads to racial equality). This is why I support Dennis Kucinich.

I think that it's a given that no candidate that openly supports same-sex marriage can win in the current political climate of the U.S. and that we're just deluding ourselves if we really think that they could, or that even if they did they'd be able to actually make it happen.

Remember that the president doesn't actually make laws.  They merely sign laws passed by Congress or else veto them.  And right now it's not clear that the Democrats are willing to alienate the South and Midwest by trying to pass a same-sex marriage bill.

So I don't think that Hillary or Obama should be judged too strongly on this issue.  Even if either of them were so inclined they could not just simply wave their hand a legalize same-sex marriage should they win the White House.

I frequently point out (and get hatefully flamed for doing so) that even the Netherlands, one of the most liberal countries in the world and the first to legalize same-sex marriage went through several years of civil unions before finally realizing that it was silly to have a separate institution for gays than for straights.  But they did need to take time to adjust to the idea.

Our (typically American) all-or-nothing attitude on the marriage issue is what provided the groundswell of public reaction that led to 2/3 of U.S. states explicitly banning same-sex marriage, and by the way, also led Hillary's husband Bill to sign the federal so-called "Defense of Marriage Act".

I know that it hurts to see lucky people in some states and several other countries enjoying equality we cannot achieve here in the U.S.  But contrary to some of the propaganda that we tell ourselves, this country is actually using slightly behind the curve on many issues involving civil rights.  Abolition of slavery was an issue in the minds of numerous Founding Father, notably Ben Franklin, but it took nearly a century to actually make happen, and then more than a century after that to get to the point where a black man could be a serious candidate for the presidency.

Personally, I fear that Hillary would be too contentious in and of herself to get much done as president, least of all for us.  She's too greatly hated by large swathes of this country and the Republicans would be even more determined to bring her down than they were her husband.

Hence, I support Obama.  I don't have any expectations that he'll legalize same-sex marriage, but I think he'll appoint fair judges and maybe work with a Democratic Congress to undermine DOMA.

A Rose is a Rose.

I don't care if you call it Marriage or Domestic Parner or what ever. The deal breaker has always been adoption. If we have domestic partnership without adoption, gay folks still can adopt like they do now. That leaves only one battle to win. Sorry I don't have the facts, but I believe tha's how the laws progressed in and Holland or Germany.

Hillary is to the right of center and that's where the democrats need to be to push the Republicans into a corner so their only supporters are the far right wing. That leaves room for a liberal party like the greens to take up the issues on the left platform. The Democrats have been trying to have it all for decades and they can't. More power to Obama if he can hold the left and right wings of the party together, that would be the real first.

Unfortunately Nukely that's really a minority view in the U.S. gay community these days it seems.  The main point of activism is that "separate but equal is not equal" and there is a fierce determination to fight for the word "marriage".  This is why I have been flamed in so many other discussions for daring to suggest that Civil Partnerships like what they have in the U.K. might be an acceptable interim measure.  That usually gets me all kinds of hate mail.

But it was absolute insistence on "marriage" that galvanized opposition to it in the first place.  Ask yourself why didn't all the states pass all these laws against same-sex marriage back in the 80's?  Or the 70's?  Or earlier?

It's because the issue didn't become real until court cases in Hawaii and Alaska suddenly made same-sex marriage seem like an immediate reality rather than a hypothetical concept.  And despite activists arrogant conviction that they could win in court, they underestimated the public will to literally change state constitutional law itself to invalidate any favorable court ruling.

America still has a long way to go on this issue.  And regardless of if Hillary or Obama were able to win the presidency it wouldn't change that fact.  Indeed, we've taken several steps backward over the last several years as now actual bans on same-sex domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriages now exist in numerous states where they did not exist before.  Now we are forced to work to overturn unjust laws imposed specifically in response to this issue.

One World, I agree with many of your sentiments.  But you are aware that Dennis Kucinich has dropped out of the primary race right?  He was a great idealistic candidate but he didn't stand a chance of winning.

America and Canada are very different from each other, although I am forced to point out that you do have Stephen Harper for a prime minister and the Conservatives enjoy a poll lead over the Liberals.  However, when C-38 passed same-sex marriage had already been passed in several provinces, enjoyed strong support in the courts and reasonable support from the public. Harper's attempt to reopen the issue died largely because even many Canadians opposed to same-sex marriage weren't vociferous enough about the issue to push heavily for repeal.

The same is not true in the U.S. as we have seen, where those opposed to same-sex marriage have proven willing and able to mobilize strong grassroots support for banning it.

In this election, Americans really seem to be looking for centrist candidate.  Someone who is steering clear of the Left and the Right.  And no candidate wants to make a serious issue of same-sex marriage either way in that climate.  McCain doesn't talk too much about it for fear of alienating gay-friendly moderates.  Hillary and Obama are also steering clear to avoid pushing away religious black and Latino voters.

This race isn't going to be about same-sex marriage for the simple reason that I don't think any candidate wants to deal with the issue.  However, I think that McCain is the most likely to throw gays to the wolves once in office should he need support from the GOP base for something.  And Bill Clinton showed that he was willing to sign DOMA, and I think Hillary won't challenge it seriously. 

Obama might not either, but again I think he has the most chance of getting things done in office.  There are several aging Supreme Court justices that may step down soon, plus many federal bench positions that will likely need filling, and I think Obama is better positioned to push decent appointments through, whereas the GOP would oppose any Hillary nominees purely on spite, like they did with Bill.

This one's going to be all about compromises...

America isn't a parliamentary democracy in the same model as Canada or most of Europe.  For example, in Canada you have the NDP, which is on the Left, the Liberals who are actually Center-Left and the Conservatives who are Right.  You also have the Bloc, which is mainly separatist but is also Left-leaning.  England has Labor as Center-Left, Conservatives at Center-Right, the Lib Dems at Left plus a few nationalist parties.  And I'm only counting the parties with parliamentary representation!  This could go on a lot longer if we dissected things in detail.

But we also don't have the issue of who forms the "government".  Our president is not also in the legislature.  So we can have an executive from one party and a bicammeral Congress held by one or both parties.  Our elections also follow a regular cycle because, since there is no party-based "government" there is no question of a confidence vote dissolving the whole thing and bringing on a new election.

Our politics are very either/or, hence we have congealed into a two-party system.  Both the Democrats and Republicans are actually conglomerations of various factions that in almost any other countries would form their own smaller political parties.  But rather than form alliances at the time a government is being formed they proactively assemble into large parties by nature.

This is why our politics are so confusing to some people.  For example, the Republicans are composed of factions with an economic focus ("Rockerfeller Republicans), Neocons who like to meddle in global-geopolitics and the Religious Right which likes to push "moral" issues.  This is why they can have a seemingly contradictory political platform that simultaneously calls for less government intereference in citizens' lives while at the same time trying to pass laws to regulate "morality" and impose religious values.

The Democrats likewise consist of a mess of factions, many of which are in conflict and which have shifted.  For example, most Southerners were once Democrats by default.  But many left the party and went to the Republicans when Democrats from the coasts and the North started pushing for black civil rights decades back.

Both sides have their discontent.  Libertarians like to drift near old-school Republican ideology but the modern party has become too inclined towards government regulation of business and personal matters.  The far Left feels that the Democrats have become too friendly to corporate interests and too detached from social causes.

But neither party wants to break up and risk being marginalized.  Ross Perot briefly positioned the Reform Party as a cult of personality around himself during his run for president, but it didn't seem likely to gain any prominence in Congress.  When Far Right Pat Buchannan tried to migrate the Religious Right to the party he failed.  Many feared (not unreasonably) that without the votes from the other conservtive factions they'd be reduced to a fringe party, and the GOP would also be dminished.

The two parties are functionally as large as they can be by absorbing all the available voters even remotely in line with their platforms.  The American cultural worldview or right/wrong. good/bad, us/them creates an impulse to only have two parties, rather than deal with the complexities of having multiple parties.  Hence smaller parties like the Libertarians, Reform, Greens, etc... seldom make much impact on America unless a prominent personality comes onto the field.

Also, let's face it, the extreme Left is demonized in the U.S. due to decades of the Cold War.  It's considered derogatory to call someone a "Socialist" or worse a "Communist" in the U.S.  Many Americans are wholly unable to comprehend how or why actual Socialism is so strong in many European countries because the USSR made Americans equate Socialism with dictatorship and plots to take over the world.

I actually don't think either Hillary or Barack are going to be president in 2009. I just have this terrible feeling that John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. And here is my feelings why:

In a way it's a pity the Dems have two really good candidates running for the White House at the same time. The Democratic supporters are clearly split between Hillary and Barack, with enough resentment between them to cause a stir in the direction of the Republicans come election time. I don't like to rely on polls too much, but they do give some insight into how voters are thinking. And the fact that a fairly large perecentage of Hillary supporters say they will not vote for Barack if he is given the Dem nomination, and an even larger percentage of Barack supporters say they will not vote for Hillary if she is given the Dem nomination, is very troubling. We could argue that turnout this time around for the Dems is quite massive compared to the Repulicans, but there is a lot of bitterness between Hillary and Barack supporters which could very well tip the balance in McCain's favor. And we all know how Republicans normally turn out in force come election time. I believe even those Republicans who are not huge supports of MaCain will still turn up to vote for him if it prevents a Democratic from entering the White house as President, I don't think this gathering as ones will happen with the Dems, as the party is too split and polarized with passions running high for his or her candidate. 

I admit to being a big time Hillary supporter, and honestly feel there has been media bias against her, with CNN and MSNBC being the worst of the two cable channels. Their love for Obama is such that their journalism integrity has been thrown out the window. I can't even watch these channels any more because of the blatent swooning over Obama.  This whole thing is so media driven it's shameful. The race to put Obama in the White House while at the same time waiting with hammer in hand to put the nail in Hillary Clinton's coffin has only helped to alianate Hillary supporters even more. Many in the media don't even hide their glee at the very thought of Hillary's downfall. It's all quite remarkable to watch.

I really hope Hillary can pull off a win in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday to keep her alive, and wipe the smug grins of the faces of so many in the Media. And even though I think it's highly unlikely she will get the Demacratic nomination, I think Obama has this more or less wrapped up, I just want the satifaction of knowing that she won all those big States.   

Oh, and I do not dislike Obama, I just prefer Hillary for President.  I think she is a very strong, intelligent and experienced woman, who would do a fine job running the White House. Nevertheless, if it is to be Obama as choice Democratic, then so be it, the voters would have spoken. 

I don't have any strong feelings against Hillary.  I just think that she wouldn't be able to get anything done in the White House.  Republicans have an almost pathological hatred for the Clintons.  Bill's entire second term was mostly them doing everything they could to get him, and Hillary, no matter if they ground the government to a halt or blew piles of taxpayer dollars on a pointless impeachment.

A Hillary presidency would go much the same way.  Even if the GOP didn't control Congress they'd still use their clout to fillibuster any legislation she supported.  They'd block her judicial nominations (as they did with Bill, creating a huge vacuum of judges for Bush to fill) and otherwise impede her every way they could.

For that reason I think Obama is the better compromise choice.

I don't agree that it's a done deal.  The nominations aren't final and there's also a chance that many GOP voters may withold their votes in protest over some of McCain's moderate stances.  Several Far Right factions are already beating a war drum.  If Dem voters sit it out then all I can say is that they are stupid.  This is a very lively election.

Additionally, there's months of campigning for gaffs to occur, a moderate middle block that is still undecided and VP running mates have not been selected.  Given McCain's age, his selection in particular will be important since he is a high risk to die or be incapacitated while in office.

If nothing else this will be the most entertaining election in years.

BTW: OneWorld, thanks for the correction about the Alliance.  I'd forgotten their name, but should have remembered the "A" for "Alberta", which is their stronghold.

As for the NDP, I wasn't denigrating them.  It's just that I don't think that kingmaker politics would work in the U.S. unless both of the large parties fragmented.  Otherwise the surviving largest party would wield disproportionate power.  Our body politic isn't quite ready for that for the reasons I have detailed above.