May 14, 2008
'There is one man...'
Posted by: Chris
NOTE: I've updated this post because the more I thought about it, the more I think Edwards' choice of language was not a gender slight, but a subtle hint to Hillaryland and her supporters that his heart isn't in it. Trying to have it both ways, like Edwards has attempted on the Iraq War, gay rights and many other issues over the years.
REVISED POST:
Is it just me or was John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama either lukewarm or rather tone-deaf toward women? The punch line announcing Edwards' decision repeated four times the line, "There is one man…" and concluded, "That man is Barack Obama":
There is one man -- there is one man who knows and understands that now is the time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up. There is one man that knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two, and that man is Barack Obama.
Given the other candidate in the Democratic primary is most definitely not a man, is Edwards even saying he believes Obama is better than Hillary Clinton? And if he is, what kind of signal does it send to say Obama is "the man" for the job?
The message is subtle, but I read this as Edwards chiming in only because the race is over and he's angling for a role in Obama's administration -- probably attorney general. In that sense, the former senator from North Carolina is displaying the same absence of political courage that has been his signature for years.
Full video of the Edwards endorsement speech here:
May 13, 2008
Speaking of possible running mates…
Posted by: Chris
Among the names being floated as possible VP picks for Barack Obama is Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who offers several potential advantages:
- As a fervid Hillary Clinton supporter (he's even still insisting the race isn't over), he could help unite the party.
- He could deliver Ohio, among the key general election, swing states. He certainly proved the potency of his political machine in the state's primary.
- He's a moderate (even earning an "A" from the National Rifle Association).
- As a former congressman and now a governor, he offers some gravitas and experience of the type Dick Cheney provided for George W. Bush; though let's hope the analogy ends there.
Strickland also has some rather far-fetched gay rumors trailing him. For one, he only married in his 40s, and despite being one of nine children has none of his own. During his campaign in 2006 to unseat Republican Gov. Ken Blackwell, right-wing talk show hosts honed in on a 1998 trip he took to Italy alone with his then-26-year-old campaign manager. It seems his traveling companion had been arrested several years earlier for exposing himself to a child.
Never mind that there's no link whatsoever between homosexuality and sexual misconduct with children, or that the child in question was a nine-year-old girl. It's all damning evidence of sexual perversity for those who want to believe it.
I doubt the rumors harm Strickland's chances of being picked by Obama; unlike, say, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist as a possible veep for John McCain. Strickland also kept a generally good record on gay issues as a congressman, though he didn't sign up as a co-sponsor for the Permanent Partners Immigration Act -- the pre-cursor to the Uniting American Families Act. Then again, neither has Obama, though he's on record supporting its passage.
As governor, he signed an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, though he disappointed activists by exempting insurance and other benefits. He also appointed the state's first out lesbian judge.
Even so, Strickland doesn't offer much in the way of foreign policy experience, something Obama could use on his ticket. I still say New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson would be far and away the best choice.
(Photo of Frances and Ted Strickland via AP)
May 07, 2008
Stay in, Hillary
Posted by: Chris
UPDATE: Marc Ambinder offers seven reasons for Clinton to stay in the race. No. 2 and No. 7 are similar to the points I make here; No. 3 and No. 5 make good additional arguments; No. 1 and No. 4 made me vomit a bit inside my mouth.
Also, Ben Smith reports that Clinton stayed positive in her West Virginia appearance today. Know hope?
After Barack Obama's impressive victory margin last night in North Carolina and a near-win in Indiana, it seems almost everyone not residing in Hillaryland has concluded the Democratic presidential race is over. I will even admit mild surprise (shame on me) when I read the Clinton campaign claimed today there had been "no discussions" about her dropping out, despite the prohibitive delegate math.
Late last night I actually thought Hillary might drop out, especially when Tim Russert (who flatly declared the race done in his view) reported that she had canceled morning talk show appearances so she could huddle with advisers. I was surprised by my reaction to that possibility, which was much more relief than glee. My reservoir of goodwill for the Clintons was sapped weeks ago by their duplicitous, scorched-earth campaign to build her up by tearing him down -- especially given her odds of success were already so long.
But I also know her candidacy has been as important and inspirational for many of her supporters as Obama's has been to his. Whenever this "long slow bataan march," as Jon Stewart called it, finally comes to an end, one side or the other -- ok, we know which side at this point -- is going to be deeply disappointed. Whatever I think about the Clinton campaign, and it isn't much, I respect the impact a loss is going to have.
The other reaction that surprised me is that, now that the nomination is a lock for Obama, I don't really see the urgency for Clinton to quit the race. Obama will have sown up the pledged delegate majority by May 20, after the Oregon primary, and the superdelegates should follow in short order.
There is a big "if" to that sentiment, however. If Hillary could manage to stay on a largely positive message like the one she delivered last night in Indiana, she could run out the clock with dignity in much the same way that Mike Huckabee did on the GOP side. She would still preserve the possibility of an Obama meltdown, lobby behind the scenes to seat Florida and Michigan, and make all the fear-based, subtly racist, overtly classist arguments she wants in private to the superdelegates.
But she would have to step back from the onslaught of negative advertising and speechifying that paints Obama as an elitist Dukakis clone out of touch with average Joe. Otherwise she's establishing once and for all that she places her own ambition and sense of entitlement outweigh the good of her party or the very common folk she talks so often about wanting to help.
Yeah, I know, there's about as much chance of that happening as Hillary pulling out the nomination.
(Photo of Hillary Clinton giving Indiana victory speech via New York Times)
May 04, 2008
On the radio
Posted by: Chris
Through the magic on modern technology, I'll be on the radio tonight, joining the good folks at OutLoud Radio between 10:30 and 11p.m. (Eastern Time) to talk about gay issues in the Democratic presidential primary. Info about tonight's entire show is available here.
That means I'll be in Rio De Janeiro using my Internet-based Vonage telephone to talk with the hosts in San Francisco while the show is broadcast live on the Net as well. Nifty. If you miss the show, no problem; it'll also be available on podcast.
If you get the chance, tune in. Even better, call in (1-866-365-4758) and put me on the spot.
May 01, 2008
More Obama-Clinton on gay rights
Posted by: Chris
With the pivotal (aren't they all?) North Carolina primary just days away, the gay paper there tried a different tactic for getting answers from the candidates on gay rights. Rather than press for phone interviews, Q-Notes apparently sent questions to both campaigns and published the answers.
I say "apparently" because the stories don't say so specifically, but they're credited to "Q-Notes staff" rather than a particular reporter and the answers (especially Hillary Clinton's) read very much like the work of a campaign staffer. This isn't the first time a prominent e-mail/fax interview in the gay press masqueraded as the real thing, and Q-Notes really should have said so explicitly.
That point aside, there are some new nuggets there. In the Clinton Q&A, I was struck how plainly the answerer dodged two direct questions I hadn't heard before. First "she" spoke in generalities when asked whether she would personally introduce legislation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act -- both wreckage from the first Clinton presidency -- should she lose the nomination and return to the Senate. She also stayed vague about whether she would commit to appointing an openly LGBT cabinet member.
The Obama Q&A broke less new ground, though he also dodged the question about personally introducing bills to repeal DOMA and DADT. Andrew Sullivan did took note of an interesting contrast. Asked to explain how he will keep our interests at heart, Obama turned the tables a bit:
I have always said that I don’t think that the LGBT community should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. Real change comes from the bottom up, not the top down.
Andrew liked what he heard:
This is a core difference between Obama's and Clinton's philosophy, it seems to me. Clinton believes government can save people and she, as the benign representative of government, can bestow equality on minorities. You just have to vote for Democrats, give money to the Democratic party interest groups (like the Human Rights Campaign) and your equality will come eventually (but always later than they say). I prefer an approach that tells gay people that they need to get off their asses, talk to straight people, build their relationships, support their community, empower themselves and win the argument for inclusion and integration.
April 18, 2008
Trolling for Catholics, dissing gays
Posted by: Chris
Pope Benedict's visit to the U.S. this week coincides with the closing days before the crucial Democratic presidential primary in Pennsylvania, where Catholics are expected to cast about one-third of the votes. Many of those Catholics are the same working class whites that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are competing so vigorously to win over.
As a result, you would expect both candidates to do a bit of papal pandering, looking for whatever edge they can find going into next Tuesday's ballot. That said, neither candidate even acknowledged Benedict's aggressive political role in challenging any sort of legal recognition of gay relationships, not to mention his vocal opposition to abortion rights and the Vatican's maddeningly unethical challenge to condom distribution in the fight against HIV.
Both statements are in the jump to this post in full, but these excerpts are representative.
First, Obama:
At a time when American families face rising costs at home and a range of worries abroad, the theme of Pope Benedict’s journey, "“Christ Our Hope," offers comfort and grace as well as a challenge to all faith communities to put our faith into action for the common good. It will not only be Catholics who are listening to the Holy Father’s message of hope and peace; all Americans will be listening with open hearts and minds.
Now, Clinton:
We are blessed to receive a visit from His Holiness, Pope Benedict, to the United States this week. Not only is he the spiritual leader of America's great Catholic community, he is a strong and effective voice for the cause of peace, freedom, and justice as well as the fight against poverty and disease. … His apostolic journey is built on the theme of Christian hope, and as he has said, the Gospel message is 'deeply rooted' in our country. We all pray that he will have a safe and successful visit to America, and that everyone will find inspiration in his presence and his words.
Of the two, Clinton's is particularly appalling, with the astonishing acknowledgment of this pope as "a strong and effective voice for the cause of … freedom and justice," not to mention praising his "fight against … disease."
Even setting aside the Vatican's shockingly immoral handling of thousands of child sexual abuse claims -- covering up claims, shuffling pedophile priests to new dioceses, then blaming homosexuality when the scandal blew up -- the Catholic leadership, and this pope in particular, is hardly a champion for peace or a warrior against disease.
Shame on Hillary Clinton for saying so.
(Photo of Pope Benedict XVI and George Bush via Times Online)
Maybe ABC did Obama a favor
Posted by: Andoni
As I wrote yesterday, I was dismayed
with the display of gotcha journalism at Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia.
However, after thinking about this for awhile and listening to the reaction of voters, friends and bloggers, I think it's quite possible that ABC News' George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson actually did Barack Obama a favor. No, I'm not bullshitting.
Consider the following:
- Obama was pummeled by Gibson, Stephanopoulos, Clinton and by proxy the Republican attack machine, and yet he left Constitution Hall alive and standing. This goes a long way toward answering the question of whether he can take it or not.
- The debate was sort of like a surgical procedure honing in on multiple abscesses. The infections were incised and drained and we ended up with a lot of pus all over the floor. This procedure substantially immunizes him should the same vile bacteria decide to invade again.
- People say that he is not vetted, but Wednesday night went a long way towards answering that charge.
- Finally, it exposed Hillary for her true self. The voters have a clear choice: go back to the politics of division, personal attack, and distraction, or choose Obama and try to move to a new level of politics of addressing problems honestly without needless distractions.
I can’t wait to see what the voters of Pennsylvania decide.
As I have said before, should there be an upset in Pennsylvania next Tuesday, Hillary's overreach on the “bitter” comment will have been a turning point. Now I think the attack machine on display at Wednesday’s debate may be a tipping point. We'll see.
Finally, check out this HuffPo post that puts into clearer context all of Clinton's criticism of those remarks by Obama about small town working class whites.
April 17, 2008
Dumbing down politics by sound-bytes (II)
Posted by: Andoni
In the spirit of my post about hating 30-second sound-bytes and going around the MSM that feeds them to us to get more information from sources like YouTube, I have been looking for the entire transcript of Senator Barack Obama’s "bitter/clinging" remarks in San Francisco.
I have found countless transcripts of the sentence in which he uses the words “bitter” and “clinging” and several sources that give the entire paragraph, but I have yet to locate the whole speech he gave at that fundraiser.
What I did find is a report from someone who was at that fundraiser who describes the setting, the entire speech and the events surrounding Obama’s comments. I think his account of Obama’s speech at that fundraiser is worth reading because it gives a fuller picture of what happened --- in contrast to MSM sound-bytes.
Just keep in mind that this was an Obama fundraiser and this account is from someone supporting Obama.
April 15, 2008
The return of Barney Fag?
Posted by: Chris
Remember back in 1995 when then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.), a renowned opponent of gay rights, referred to Barney Frank as "Barney Fag" in a press interview? He claimed it was only "a slip of the tongue" but as Barney noted at the time, "I turned to my own expert, my mother, who reports that in 59 years of marriage, no one ever introduced her as Elsie Fag."
Now we're seeing the emergence of "Obama Bin Laden," and I would file it away as things that make you go hmm…
First there was John Ashcroft, who flubbed it up while questioning Obama's patriotism:
Then Joy Behar of "The View":
Now there's the chairman of the Associated Press, of all people:
You can cut them all some slack, but you have to wonder if this sort of things catches on, whether the Barney Fag phenom has returned.
April 14, 2008
Dumbing down politics by sound-bytes
Posted by: Andoni
I hate 30-second sound-bytes in politics. I would argue that they don’t serve America well, but I also realize there’s not much I or anyone else can do about it. Unfortunately, these snippets of information and opinion have become a big part of our political discourse and often determine who is elected president. I would blame sound-bytes from giving us George W. Bush, for example, rather than Al Gore.
The most recent example of how sound-bytes serve the public poorly is from San Francisco, where Barack Obama told supporters that he encountered "bitter" people in small town Ohio and Pennsylvania who were "clinging" to guns and religion because of their difficult economic situation.
That sound-byte from San Francisco does not reveal the depth with which Obama has thoughtfully considered this issue.
The question is whether YouTube and the Internet have helped us evolve to the point we can get around these sound-bytes to see for ourselves the full statement or what a person’s position really is? Are we seeing the dawn of a new era of politics don't rely on the 30-second bytes the MSM chooses for them?
For America’s sake, let’s hope so. The results next Tuesday in Pennsylvania will offer some indication.
April 11, 2008
Some gay straight talk from Obama
Posted by: Chris
Barack Obama's wide-ranging Advocate interview posted yesterday confirmed again that he "gets it" on LGBT issues while avoiding the temptation to pander.
Asked what gays can "reasonably expect" to enact in an Obama administration, the Illinois senator set the bar higher for himself than Hilllary Clinton has thus far, including
- repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
- passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
- extending domestic partner benefits to gay federal employees
Clinton has committed to those same items, along with ushering through the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. Most importantly, Obama also said he was "very interested in making sure that federal benefits are available to same-sex couples who have a civil union."
Advocate News Editor Kerry Eleveld took that to mean repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, but it's actually much more sweeping. DOMA only blocks federal recognition of gay marriages, at this point are limited to Massachusetts, but says nothing about civil unions. That leaves the field open for Congress to extend to gay couples in civil unions all the federal rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage.
Given that two-thirds of the public either supports marriage or civil unions for gay couples, Obama's proposal is a clever way of extending vitally important federal rights while recognizing the states' prerogative to decide what relationships to recognize. The real question is why we are hearing innovative proposals like this from presidential candidates and not from our own movement leadership.
Along with the savvy legislative agenda, Obama craftily navigated several P.C. minefields. On ENDA, he said he supports trans-inclusive but says enacting it would be tough. "Obviously, my goal would be to get the strongest possible bill," he added. So why isn't that likewise obvious to HRC and the United ENDA crowd?
On gays in the military, Obama avoids the doodoo Al Gore stepped in back in 2000, when he said opposition to the policy would be a litmus test for any chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obama has the advantage of eight more years of social acceptance within the military, but nonetheless gets it right:
I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 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 … 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
On marriage, Obama declined to take the bait on advising the movement to press for civil unions rather than full marriage equality:
I don’t ask them that. 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.
Not only is that respectful, it's the first time I've seen any viable presidential candidate state so succinctly the case for gay marriage over civil unions. Clearly Obama gets it, even if he's "operating in a broader political and historical context," as he puts it.
Eleveld also manages to elicit more background from Obama about where he personally traces his comfort level on gay issues; mostly from his mother's general tolerance and an openly gay professor.
Obama's weakest moments were at the beginning and the end of the interview. He defended his inaccessibility to the gay press as a general campaign bias in favor of "general press" or "specialty press." There are a number or problems with this, not the least of which is the frequent criticism of Obama as a feel-good candidate full of generalities.
Sticking with mainstream media interviews only perpetuates that, since reporters with a general audience rarely plum the details of specific issues like gay rights because they are covering the field. The Advocate interview, as well as several of Clinton's gay press chats, demonstrate how the specialty press will ask important detailed questions that the broader media will miss. Obama should embrace the opportunity to get into specifics, since the reach of the Internet opens even specialty press interviews to a much broader audience.
I'm also not buying the unsolicited analogy Obama made between ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin and his own pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama argued that both were examples of the importance of opening the tent wide enough to embrace those who disagree on specific issues. Fair enough, as far as that goes. But Wright was removed from any official role in the Obama campaign, while McClurkin was invited to perform at official campaign events.
A more consistent approach would have been to either banish both
from any official campaign connection, or leave them both be while
distancing himself from their more radical views. Only the politics of
the moment explains the disparate treatment and Obama would be better
served simply acknowledging as much.
April 10, 2008
Obama's gay press snub? (II)
Posted by: Chris
Politico bit on the "Obama-gay press snub" story, and the story by Carrie Budoff Brown does a nice job of covering the field:
With a decent story for Obama to tell, gay editors from Dallas to San Francisco to Boston have been left wondering why Obama doesn’t take it directly to their publications, as Clinton has done with increasing frequency since Super Tuesday.
“It doesn’t seem to match what he says at these other events,” said Cynthia Laird, news editor at the Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco. “It is very disappointing to me.”
The reason for Obama’s distance is unclear. In keeping with his campaign’s managed approach to the media in general, Obama has communicated with the gay press on his own terms, placing ads in local gay newspapers and writing op-eds. And with more interview requests than Obama can fill, aides likely do a cost-benefit analysis of each media outlet and the audience it reaches.
She notes that some gay press entities are asking to be treated like MSM without observing the same rules of objectivity and neutrality -- the complaint I've registered here.
Responding to the Politico piece, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder suggests the gay press take a chill pill:
Arguably, it is more important for Obama to speak about gay issues to general audiences than it is for him to speak about gay issues before gay audiences.
That's mixing apples and oranges, actually. I would agree that Obama talking about gay issues to mainstream audiences is more important in determining whether he's genuine in his support for gay rights, rather than viewing us as just another special interest. But that's a bit beside the point concerning the gay press snub. These brief encounters with mainstream audiences do not allow for the kind of in-depth questioning that comes from a "specialty press" interview.
The gay community has been plagued since Bill Clinton by Democrats with campaign bromides who don't deliver in office. The long primary campaign season is an ideal time for those generalities to be fleshed out into policy details. Candidates may have limited time, as Ambinder points out, but over the many months of campaigning there ought to be a spare 20 minutes here and there to get down to specifics.
That said, even as an alum of the local gay press, I don't buy into the idea that it's a snub of "the LGBT press" if a candidate only talks to the Advocate. The local gay press shot itself in the foot with the Resnick and Segal hijinks of this campaign season, but there are plenty of local LGBT publications -- the Washington Blade, Southern Voice and (most of) the other National Gay Newspaper Guild papers, certainly -- that employ quality journalists who can conduct a proper, probing interview.
The point is whether the tough questions get asked and answered. In Obama's case -- between the HRC-Logo forum and the two Advocate interviews -- I would say they have been.
April 09, 2008
Obama sits for second Advocate chat
Posted by: Chris
Barack Obama has apparently done another interview with the Advocate, which should settle some of the criticism he's received of late for limiting gay press access.
He did sit down for the Human Rights Campaign-Logo forum and was the first to accept the invitation. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and most of the other Democratic presidential contenders did as well. Obama also talked to the Advocate during the whole Donnie McClurkin flap, though the interview was limited to that subject.
Since then, Clinton talked to the Advocate, the Washington Blade, did a joint interview with the Dallas Voice and two Ohio gay papers, and last week talked to the Philadelphia Gay News. PGN, in particular, took umbrage that Obama declined to be interviewed, publishing a half-page of blank white space on the front page to reflect where his Q&A would have been.
PGN Publisher Mark Segal also took Obama to task on the editorial page, never revealing that he was an early Clinton supporter, having donated $1,000 to her campaign in early 2007.
The Advocate interview should be up on the publication's website by tomorrow, according to a report in the Dallas Voice, and Obama campaign spokesman said it had been arranged before the whole PGN flap.
April 06, 2008
Accessing those 1,200 federal benefits
Posted by: Andoni
Last week on Chris Mathews’ Hardball College Tour at West Chester College, Barack Obama was asked by a gay student if he supported civil marriage for same-sex couples. Obama answered that he did not support gay marriage but rather “strong civil unions,” where all 1,200 federal benefits of marriage are bestowed on gay couples in civil unions:
Similarly, in her interview with the Philadelphia Gay News, Hillary Clinton said she would like to “extend the same access to federal benefits across the board” to couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships. She wasn’t as definitive as Obama and she didn’t reference the 1,200 benefits, but she did lean in the direction of wanting federal benefits for gay couples.
My first thought as a guy person in a same-sex binational relationship was whether whoever was compiling this list of 1,200 benefits had included immigration rights on it. And then I wondered who is keeping this list anyway?
A quick email to Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, got me a list of those 1,200 benefits, compiled by the General Accounting Office. To my relief, immigration is listed (Category 6, page 7). It also got me an interpretation of these benefits from the Freedom to Marry website.
So with two presidential candidates who want to extend federal benefits to legally partnered same-sex couples, the question is how best to do it? Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? That will only benefit the people in Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal, but not those in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, California, Washington, Oregon or the District of Columbia -- all of which have some form of civil union or domestic partnership.
Can federal benefits be extended to same sex couples in states that have partnership laws by simply passing a federal law mandating it? What about DOMA?
As a non-attorney, I would argue that repealing DOMA, passed way back in 1996, is unnecessary. A new federal law recognizing gay partnerships for federal benefits would conflict with DOMA but be more recent -- the more recent federal law would govern. Still, for married gay couples in Massachusetts, DOMA would have to be repealed.
Whether I'm right or not, it's passing strange that with two presidential candidates publicly advocating federal recognition of gay couples, we have not heard anything from our national organizations about how best to get the ball rolling.
HRC, NGLTF, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, Lambda Legal? I’m calling you out here.
This is a big thing Obama and Clinton are proposing; a huge deal. I'm dismayed that no groundwork is being laid by our national leadership.
April 01, 2008
Obama knocks the socks off NYC gays
Posted by: Andoni
"I've been to many events over the past 10 years of candidates running for office. This was the most forthright, eloquent, and detailed stuff I've heard from a politician [regarding gay issues]."
That's according to Corey Johnson, one of the hosts of a Barack Obama fundraiser held the other night at the apartment of GLSEN founder and executive director Kevin Jennings -- right in Hillary Clinton's home turf, New York City.
According to those present, Obama took on some of the toughest issues on the gay legislative agenda in his remarks without prompting and spoke with detail and candor that those in the audience were not used to hearing.
On marriage equality, Obama again said he favored civil unions at this time, but left the door open for marriage at a future date. On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, he said he supported a transgender-inclusive ENDA but did not think the votes were there in the Senate for that version of the bill.
What surprised me was that Obama's speech was on gay issues and yet most of the questions following his 30-35 minutes of remarks were on non-gay issues. To me that means that he must have nailed every gay issue that was on peoples' minds or they wouldn't have switched to non gay issues during the Q & A.
Obama repeated that his top three priorities if elected will be to safely extricate the U.S. from Iraq, pass affordable health care legislation and address greenhouse gases and the environment.
March 28, 2008
The audacity of 'huh?'
Posted by: Chris
The Blade published a provocative guest editorial today by former Log Cabin political director Chris Barron, arguing that Barack Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright ought to disqualify him from the presidency. It covers the usual ground concerning Wright's controversial sermons, but veers into new territory here:
I wonder what the reaction from the gay left would have been if it were revealed that Jerry Falwell had been John McCain’s pastor for decades or that David Duke had been the best man in his wedding. I am fairly certain that such an intimate association with men with such divisive and repulsive views would certainly be grounds enough not to support his candidacy.
I don’t believe in simple guilt by association, but I do believe it is fair to assess a candidate, particularly their judgment, by looking at those they choose to so closely associate themselves with. Rev. Wright is no different than Jerry Falwell or David Duke, and the consequences for Obama should be no different than they would be for a Republican.
Let's count the holes here, shall we? First off, McCain did choose to associate himself with Falwell, as well as Rev. John Hagee, who said Katrina was God's smiting the sodomites in New Orleans gathering for Southern Decadence weekend.
Second, the comparison of Wright to Falwell or Duke is strained, to say the least. Wright never inserted his oddball politico-religious beliefs into public policy debates and he certainly never argued that his own theological beliefs were a basis for limiting the individual rights of others. One would hope a Log Cabin Republican would understand that critical difference.
Finally, Barron acknowleges that (a) he doesn't know if Obama ever confronted Wright about the extremist sermons he did hear (Obama has said he did); and (2) he doesn't believe Obama shares Wright's outrageous views. Add that up with Barron's failure to analogize Wright to right-wing religious extremists who push their view into our politics, and you're left with a "huh?"
I would count myself alongside Hillary Clinton, who (opportunistically) said yesterday that she would have quit Wright's church if he were her pastor. But I cannot see the relevance of a political candidate's personal decision of whether or not to do the same. What about Mitt Romney, whose church didn't consider blacks equal to whites until 1978?
March 24, 2008
The intro to 'The Speech'
Posted by: Chris
With all the well-deserved attention paid to "The Speech" by Barack Obama on race and politics last week in Philadelphia, most of us missed the introduction he received from Harris Wofford, the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. I am very proud to call Harris a friend, even though he turned 80 exactly one year and one day after I turned 40.
I can only marvel at the amazing life he has led, from advising Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy on civil rights issues, to helping launch the Peace Corps. It is to Pennsylvania's credit that Harris was re-elected to the Senate in 1991 over Dick Thornburgh, the heavily favored former governor and U.S. attorney general. It's to the state's eternal shame that Wofford subsequently lost his seat in a razor-thin election to Rick Santorum, the arch-conservative, anti-gay Republican.
Harris' lifelong commitment to bridging the gap between the races made him the ideal choice to introduce Senator Obama in Philadelphia last week. His high praise reinforces the notion many have that this presidential campaign has truly unique potential:
Originals of this kind don’t come along often – maybe once every few generations. They come when they are most needed. When I heard Barack Obama speak at the Democratic Convention in 2004, I saw him as such an original. Since then I’ve read his two books and listened to his words that are reaching the soul of America. And in this campaign we’ve seen him putting those words into action.
We’ve waited a long time to meet a leader whom the country needs as badly as we needed John Kennedy in 1960 and Robert Kennedy in 1968. And today, I’m more convinced than ever that Barack Obama is that leader.
He closed his introduction with a story about King and Kennedy that merits retelling:
I’ll never forget one moment in the early weeks of President Kennedy’s thousand days. The President had to tell Dr. King that he was committed to the full civil rights agenda, but that he would have to delay proposing the far-reaching legislation that had been pledged in the 1960 Democratic Platform. He had decided that to go forward with legislation at that time would have been self-defeating -- triggering a Southern filibuster, exposing the weakness of the Democratic Party, and revealing the inability of the new President, with a razor thin majority, to control the Congress.
It was a difficult discussion. But it was Kennedy and King at their best; both calm and determined to reason together to find their way forward. Martin was disappointed. But he accepted the decision, and said he wasn’t going to attack the President for it.
On his way out of the White House, Martin turned to me and said, “I had hoped when I came here today that this would at last be a President who had the intelligence to understand this problem, the political skill to solve it, and the moral passion to see it through. I’m convinced now that he’s got the intelligence and the skill. We’ll have to see if he has the passion.”
Kennedy eventually proved that he had the passion, as did Robert Kennedy in his turn. Now, as we aim to complete the work that we began all those years ago, I’m convinced that if Martin Luther King were alive today, he’d say Barack has all three.
The introduction in its entirety is available in the jump to this post.
March 23, 2008
Where's the 'sharp contrast'?
Posted by: Chris
The headline this Easter Sunday in the non-denominational Christian Today reads, "McCain's pastor a sharp contrast to Obama's," but that conclusion doesn't bear up to scrutiny:
John McCain's Phoenix pastor, Dan Yeary, is a folksy patriotic Southern Baptist who opposes abortion and believes homosexuality to be a biblical sin, but says Christians have an obligation to love such sinners.
That puts Yeary, who heads the church attended for the past 15 years by the US Republican presidential candidate firmly in the US Southern Baptist mainstream, and in line with the Republican Party.
He offers a sharp contrast to Democratic contender Barack Obama's former preacher Jeremiah Wright, who has stirred controversy with his fiery comments on race and America.
The comparison is false on its face. Yeary may well be within the mainstream of Southern Baptists but Wright is similarly within the mainstream of the black church, however incendiary the snippets from his sermons may have been to white Americans.
I also fail to see any contrast in the suggestion that Wright is divisive but Yeary somehow is not. Yeary opposes abortion rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court for 35 years, and advocates second-class treatment of gays. What's worse, there is every indication that McCain agrees with his pastor on those points, in the religious and political sense, making his pastor's views much more clearly fair game for discussion.
For example:
The 69-year-old Yeary adheres to the Southern Baptist belief that gay marriage and homosexual relations go against Biblical scripture, hot-button issues for many in the United States.
"The Bible is pretty clear about it, in my opinion it specifically calls it a sin. I also am a sinner and you are a sinner. ... Did Jesus Christ love homosexuals? I'm sure he did," Yeary said.
This sounds remarkably light John McCain's fervent opposition to absolutely any form of legal recognition for gay relationships -- not just marriage or civil unions but even limited domestic partnerships.
There's no indication, on the other hand, that Obama has taken any political cues from Wright's divisive views. To the contrary, Obama has insisted Wright is purely a spiritual mentor and has rejected, denounced and otherwise distanced himself from the controversial political views Wright has aired from the pulpit.
If anything, we should be hearing less about Wright and more about McCain's pastor, and his other religious supporters like Pastor John Hagee, who famously claimed that Hurricane Katrina was intended by God to wipe out the gay Southern Decadence party set for that weekend.
March 21, 2008
Richardson to endorse Obama
Posted by: Chris
Barack Obama receives some great news at the end of the most difficult week of his campaign. The AP is reporting that he'll receive an endorsement on Friday from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson:
Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership. Richardson dropped out of the Democratic race in January, and is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore.
The backing from Richardson, who was heavily wooed by both the Clintons, bucks up Obama's national security credibility, given Richardson's history as Bill Clinton's ambassador to the United Nations and success as a "roving diplomatic troubleshooter," as the AP puts it, negotiating the release of U.S. hostages and handling delicate negotiations with North Korea, Cuba and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Richardson certainly knows what it takes to respond effectively to that mythical 3 a.m. phone call.
Richardson will also bolster Obama with Latinos, who until now have largely supported Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps the most encouraging result of this endorsement is the possible selection of Richardson as Obama's running mate. Richardson had his problems on the campaign trail, but he can help Obama in the general election geographically, demographically and on the hot-button issue of national security experience.
It's also worth noting that Richardson was probably the second best president candidate on gay rights -- gaffes aside -- behind Obama himself. These two candidates at the top of the ticket should generate enthusiasm from LGBT voters of all political stripes.
March 20, 2008
Wright defies convention on gays
Posted by: Chris
Barack Obama and many other parishioners of the Trinity UCC in Chicago have said that Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been unfairly caricatured by the brief excerpts of sermons playing in endless loop on cable TV and YouTube.
It does seem that whatever ugly intolerance and divisiveness he spews on those videos, Wright has been more accepting of gay parishioners than many in the black church, especially those who preach "black liberation theology":
As a leader, Wright defied convention at every turn. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last year, he recalled a time during the 1970s when the UCC decided to ordain gay and lesbian clergy. At its annual meeting, sensitive to the historic discomfort some blacks have with homosexuality, gay leaders reached out to black pastors.
At that session, Wright heard the testimony of a gay Christian and, he said, he had a conversion experience on gay rights. He started one of the first AIDS ministries on the South Side and a singles group for Trinity gays and lesbians—a subject that still rankles some of the more conservative Trinity members, says Dwight Hopkins, a theology professor at the University of Chicago and a church member.
None of that excuses Wright's hateful rhetoric in the pulpit, but it gives a fuller version of the man than we've been getting.
March 19, 2008
What if Obama said this…?
Posted by: Andoni
Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.
-- Senator John McCain, speaking in Jordan (March 19, 2008)
Can you imagine the reaction from the media and critics if Barack Obama had similarly misstated and misunderstood the difference between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, and confused which side Al Qaeda was on? He would have been ridiculed and labeled unfit to be commander in chief. There may well have been calls for him to leave the race because of his ignorance of foreign affairs.
Yet this is exactly the error that on at least