Kelly Eleveld seems like a very intelligent and interesting person.

Maybe it was just time allotted for the discussion, but if you compare Obama’s answers in this interview and Clinton’s answers in the Philly gay press interview, she gets into MUCH more detail about which discriminatory laws need to be changed. She even gets into the specific tax laws she would change to make sure gay couples have full legal equity. It is impressive to me that she took the time to know every single aspect of all the various laws which discriminate against gay couples.

In the Advocate interview and this interview, Kelly seemed to hint at Obama's tendency to talk about gay rights in more general or broad terms, rather than addressing what he will specifically do to end government discrimination. His answer seems to be more of his general campaign "Yes we can" rhetoric. I think this is why he appeals to Republicans, Independents, and wealthier Democrats so much. They like a politician who tells them they have the power to make things better, rather than the government making things better for them.

Working class Americans support Democrats, and specifically Clinton, because they want a government that supports them, rather than admonishes them for not being more successful in life. Obama's sentiment in the interview seems to be that gay people should not look to him for help. He will not be our enemy, but really he has no intention of micromanaging the government.

If this is the type of politician you like, so be it. I support Hillary because she tells us (whether it is on health care, the economy, or gay rights) what SHE will specifically do to make things better. She does not lay the responsibility at our feet like Republicans and Libertarians often do. She is a true Democrat. This does not make Obama a bad politician, just not the type of politician I vote for. He would make a great Republican candidate, but he is not a very good Democrat candidate.

That's not what he was saying at all.  He supports (and thinks it is feasible in the near future) eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and passing ENDA.

He also unequivocally supports civil unions, with equal rights and benefits as marriage.  When they got into the discussion on the term marriage itself, he was simply pointing out what we all need to realize:  Legalizing same-sex marriage on a national scale will not happen soon and will only happen once we win over a substantial segment of the public.  It shouldn't be that way (rights are rights), but it's the reality of the situation.  If a same-sex marriage case came up to the Supreme Court today, we all know it would come down the wrong way.

Obama can only do much in his role as Commander in Chief; he can't single-handedly create such sweeping social change.  That's why he thinks it's best to empower us (the GLBT community) to make these important strategic decisions as to how best to achieve equality.  But I nonetheless believe he would be an important ally for us and I also believe, on the whole, he has the potential to be a great President.

No one ever made that argument, so let's stick to the real issues. Hillary has had absolutely no problem airing ads in this election cycle which appeal to anti-black prejudice, so she's hardly one to talk about taking the high road.  I take it you are also aware that the Clinton/Gore team aired anti-gay ads during the 1996 election cycle, right? The Clintons might be pro-gay personally, but they have always been perfectly willing to shove us aside when political expediency called for it.

Policywise, Obama and Clinton actually are not substantially different.  However, my respect for Clinton has fallen precipitously over the shameful way she has conducted her campaign since she began losing the race (back in February).  I respect Obama:  He's a smart, capable person who is inspiring people all over the country, including an unprecedented number of young voters. 

The whole "Clinton has won more blue states" argument is hogwash since the vast majority of those states will go blue in the general election no matter who is running on the Democratic ticket.  The primary race is NOT the same as the general.  But the truth is that Obama has more widespread appeal among Independents, is less polarizing a figure than Hillary, and I think he can bring out core constituencies in record numbers (African Americans, young voters) that Hillary simply can't. 

He is easily the more electable of the two. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh has been urging Republicans to vote for Hillary in the states where the primaries are open?  Because Republicans know she will be easier to beat in the general.

On one side I have GeoNorth saying Clinton is too conservative, and on the other I have Kevinfan saying Clinton is too polarizing...which must refer to Republicans since she has broad support among Democrats.  No one has explained to me why I should support Obama, the candidate the Republican voters clearly prefer. 

Oh, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter support another Clinton in the White House because the last one is how they became so powerful.  When there is a liberal Democrat in the White House who is getting shit done, it agitates the red states and book sales and ratings for Coulter and Limaugh skyrocket.  They are thinking about their bank accounts, not their political beliefs.  They need to pay for those drug habits somehow.

I support Clinton for reasons beyond just I think she is better on gay rights.  As a working class American, I also think she will do more to help those of us who need a little support from the government every once and awhile.  It is why I even considered supporting John Edwards a little.  He seemed to have the best plan for helping us who work hard and yet still find ourselves at a disadvantage.  Clinton is clearly the strongest of the all the candidates still running for president.  She impressed John Edwards on this issue, even though he has concerns about her on other areas.

Here is an excerpt from a New York Magazine article:

 "But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out--tempus fugit!--and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate."

Here is the link to the entire article:  http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/45604/

Perhaps this is why the wealthier Democrats and the Republicans support Obama.  They know he will not burden them with taxes to help the poor.

Read the interview again.  They're talking about the issue of calling it "marriage" only, not de-facto marriage rights that are identical in substance.  Obama has repeatedly called for passing legislation that gives gay couples a "civil union"-like arrangement (different name, same rights and benefits). 

How you interpet that to mean he's saying, "Well since we aren't at the point where we can call it marriage, we might as well do nothing" is beyond me.  Both candidates have come out in support of civil unions.

Questions for the resident Clinton supporters:

A major theme of Clinton's campaign is her "experience," from her time in the White House to her tenure in the Senate.

If Clinton wants to take credit for the good things that happened during her husband's presidential terms - which she repeatedly does - shouldn't she ALSO take the blame for the bad?

Clinton does have more time logged in the Senate than Obama does, although it's only 4 years more.  Shouldn't then, she be judged by her record & not her promises? 

Example 1 - she has been on the Armed Services committee since 2003.  If she truly believes in ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, why hasn't she done anything about it?

Example 2 - she has been on the Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions committee since 2001.  If she truly believes in universal health care, what has she done to advance it?

Example 3 - she voted to give Bush broad presidential powers.  If she truly believes that was a mistake, what has she done to rescind them?