Best,
Hannah Friedman

Hagee anyone?

I took that “who should I vote for” online thing and it came up Obama. So what! He’s telling us everything we want to hear!

He has too many ties with people WHO HATE! Farrakhan anyone???

See how many people go crazy around him?
That’s not normal.
That’s crazy. Just like the people who believe that the preacher made someone walk again.

I AM NOT voting Obama. Gay people who vote based solely on gay issues are almost as bad as people who vote based on right to life.

I am pretty sure I will vote McCain.

http://advocate.com/exclusive_.....d52635.asp

I do agree that as a Democrat, we need to support the winner or nominee. Now that Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into to the ring, we need to be more vigilante.

However, I feel that Nader is preempting the voter’s decisions in Ohio and Texas because now he is making sure the Democrats think that Obama will be a better candidate since he attracts the same independents that Obama did (the young college students).

Please do not let Nader’s entry into the race determine the best candidate. If we were thinking electable, how come the last Dem nominee was picked. He certainly was not the most enigmatic candidate and someone the young and independents would have been attracted to the polls for.

Vote your belief and let’s get the Republicans out our lives for at least the next four years.

Thank you.

If not, then drop it. I preferred Hillary, and was never on the Obama love-train. Nevertheless, he’s on track to win the nomination. The only question now is: will Hillary bow out gracefully after Texas and Ohio, or fight to the bloody end.

It’s time to rally around the guy. That is, if you’re voting Democrat.

“Gay Sex, Drug Use Detailed in Barack Obama Lawsuit”

gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=163&id=18245

A lawsuit filed in the United States District Court of Minnesota February 11, 2008 alleges democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama engaged in illegal drug use and sexual activity with another man in 1999.

1) his voting record is sketchy, with a large number of Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present. He has over 100 issues in this category. How does this translate into a good candidate for president? I am a skeptic so I had to se this for myself. http://votesmart.org/voting_ca.....an_id=9490

2)He is a horrible debater. In a time when we need a GREAT communicator, this seems like a deal breaker.

CLAIM: Barack Obama Champions Gay Rights on the Campaign Trail

FACT: NO, he DOESN’T. He talks about not scapegoating gays. He talks about giving gays hugs. But the ONLY time he puts the words “gay” and “rights” together is in answers to questions in interviews and debates just as the other candidates have. Yes, I believe he supports most gay rights, but he doesn’t deserve credit for “championing” them on the campaign trail when he hasn’t. “Selective perception” or conscioiusly dishonest campaign propaganda—take your pick.

CLAIM: Barack Obama included gays and lesbians as participants in the American Dream when announcing his decision to run for President.

FACT: NO, he only talking about not blaming us, and other groups he listed, for America’s problems. Good but not even CLOSE to “including us in the American Dream.” They’ve gone from “hearing” a phrase never spoken to entire sentences. The political equivalent we guess of “hearing voices.”

CLAIM: “the visibility he has given to LGBT equality is unprecedented”

FACT: The number of times he’s dropped the Gay-word in speeches might be unprecedented, but again the important second word “equality” just ain’t there in his speeches, and he says nothing more than the other Dem candidates have in interviews and debates—often LESS given that no other Dem candidate has had the gall to lecture us on the DEGREE of equality WE should accept. “Civil unions as I define them”—Bitch, please! Not marriage is NOT MARRIAGE so stop smile fucking us unless you’re willing to trade YOUR marriage for any one of our “civil unions.”

CLAIM: Barack’s commitment to LGBT rights is also manifest in his record of accomplishment, which extends throughout his 11 years in public office on every issue of concern to our community.

FACT: Obama did not get around to joining as a cosponsor to someone else’s gay rights bill the first time until AFTER he’d been in the Illinois Senate FOUR YEARS—and even then it was four months AFTER the bill had been introduced.

CLAIM: From relationships and families to workplace discrimination to bold policies on HIV/AIDS, the Senator’s commitment is unmatched by any candidate.

FACT: That claim is so full of gas I’d advise everyone not to light a match. Sen. Clinton would increase AIDS funding by TWENTY BILLION dollars. Obama would only add FIVE—what’s so fucking “bold” about that?

CLAIM: He has proven that he has the character to stand up for principle when the going gets tough.

FACT: Except when he’s too busy campaigning for higher office as he was during the entire nine months a gay rights bill in Illinois was being fought over. He didn’t even take a few seconds out of his Ambition Tour to sign on as a cosponsor.

CLAIM: Barack has supported the complete, unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act since he was a candidate for Senate.

FACT: His own Constitutional law spokesman has said that gays at the state level would be “no better or worse off” if DOMA was repealed. Further, he confirmed that, regardless of DOMA repeal, Obama would still support a state’s right to ban any kind of gay relationship whatever it’s called if they want. His support for federal benefits for gay couples is exactly the same as Sen. Clinton’s.

CLAIM: He has taken stronger positions on dismantling Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and on fully inclusive workplace protections than any candidate in this race.

FACT: Danger! Remember my warning about “no open flames.” This statement is not just gaseous, it’s at best a disingenous exaggeration and close enought to an outright LIE to win at horseshoes. Worse, he’s said he’d consult with the Pentagon about DADT which is like wanting to consult with the fox about what to do with the chickens.

CLAIM: Barack is a strong supporter of every major piece of LGBT legislation in Congress today, from fair tax treatment and equal immigration rights to domestic partner benefits for federal workers.

FACT: No more so than Sen. Clinton who is on record supporting each of these points.

CLAIM: In Illinois, Obama sponsored a fully inclusive anti-discrimination law that included both sexual orientation and gender identity. A subsequent version of that bill was later enacted as the Illinois Human Rights Act, now one of the most progressive laws of its kind in the country. … Barack helped make it happen in Illinois.

FACT: Obama was only a COsponsor of three bills that died in committee. Further, as stated above, actions speak louder than words and Obama not only did NOT help “make it happen” but was totally Missing In Action when his help was needed to pass SB3186. More shameful yet, that didn’t stop him from LYING during the LOGO forum and to “The Advocate” claiming he was a “chief cosponsor” and “passed” SB3186 when not only was he NOT a sponsor of any kind but he was NO LONGER IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE when it was voted on. All he’s passing is more gas. That repeated lie only warmed him up for his LIE to Iowa voters that he had “passed” a bill in Illinois regulating the nuclear industry when the bill died before coming to a vote. And today, he was finally called out on documented lies in campaign literature about what Sen. Clinton has said about NAFTA and how her universal health care plan would be implemented. And all those were after he promised more than once that he would not run for President until he’d completed his first six-year US Senate term. The shelf-life on that promise lasted barely three years.

CLAIM: Barack has sponsored the Microbicide Development Act to fund research critical to combating HIV/AIDS in the United States and around the world.

FACT: Obama was only one of about 15 COsponsors of the bill INCLUDING Sen. Clinton.

CLAIM: His singular ability to inspire unity and support across communities is why we support Barack Obama.

FACT: That alleged ability has been tested twice and he failed both times.

1. One of his closest friends is Rev. James Meeks, who is also State Sen. Meeks, a rabid, aggressive homophobe who, among other things, has blamed “Hollywood Jews for bringing us ‘Brokeback Mountain’” and ran for governor on an antigay platform. Assuming Obama even tried, he FAILED to get Meeks to vote for that gay rights bill which only managed to pass after 30+ years of trying by ONE vote—no thanks to Obama.
2. Y’all still feeling the “unity” after he threw us under the Donnie McClurkin bus? Both Meeks and McClurkin are just as homohating as they ever were before meeting Barack the Uniter.

Obama is many things—intelligent, charismatic, eloquent. But he is also a documented liar to the LGBT community, and others, who has been smile fucking us for months so well that people like those who wrote the Blade article have been hearing words that were never spoken and believing deeds that were never done. The candidate they describe could make a great President. Unfortunately, the candidate they describe is not Barack Obama.

Why didn’t he or Hillary or most of the Democrats champion our agenda when fellow Democrat Barney was gutting ENDA? Why didn’t either of them demand the repeal of the Clintons DOMA and DADT while they sat in Congress?

Why did they allow fellow Democrat Diane Feinstein to ram through gaybashing Bush nosiness for the 5th US Circuit Court of appeals and as Attorney General? Why did they allow fellow Democrats Pelosi and Reid to toss the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill in the toilet after both houses passed it.

Why rely on either of them to do any better in the White House?

A Republican is a baboon in a people suit with a totalitarian christian attached at the thigh.
A Democrat is a Republican in Drag.

Eight years olds are forgiven if they believe politicians, Frisco lawyers, priests and used car sellers. Grownups have no excuse.

Who needs Republicans with Democrats like these?

By STEVEN NICKS, WITH DAVID ALPORT, JASON HAAS, PETER TEAGUE AND MAXIM THORNE
Jan. 25, 2008

ON JAN. 20, THE eve of Martin Luther King Day, Sen. Barack Obama stood before Rev. King’s home church in Atlanta and proudly set forth his vision for achieving progressive change and unity in America. In that historic speech, Barack challenged his audience to examine their own prejudices. “If we are honest with ourselves,” he said, “we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.” He continued:
“So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scapegoating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others—all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face: war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.”

This extraordinary act—including the LGBT community in a message delivered in the very heartland of the Civil Rights Movement—was merely the latest chapter in Barack’s advocacy on behalf of LGBT Americans. Among all the candidates in this race, only Barack Obama included gays and lesbians as participants in the American Dream when announcing his decision to run for President. Only Barack has regularly talked about LGBT equality on the campaign trail, even when the audience was not LGBT-friendly. Barack has been changing hearts and minds, and the visibility he has given to LGBT equality is unprecedented.

Barack’s commitment to LGBT rights is also manifest in his record of accomplishment, which extends throughout his 11 years in public office on every issue of concern to our community. From relationships and families to workplace discrimination to bold policies on HIV/AIDS, the Senator’s commitment is unmatched by any candidate. He has proven that he has the character to stand up for principle when the going gets tough.

Barack has supported the complete, unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act since he was a candidate for Senate. He has taken stronger positions on dismantling Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and on fully inclusive workplace protections than any candidate in this race. Barack is a strong supporter of every major piece of LGBT legislation in Congress today, from fair tax treatment and equal immigration rights to domestic partner benefits for federal workers. In contrast to Barack’s leadership, we find it troubling that Sen. Hillary Clinton refuses to call for the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, legislation that was signed into law by then-President Clinton.

In Illinois, Obama sponsored a fully inclusive anti-discrimination law that included both sexual orientation and gender identity. A subsequent version of that bill was later enacted as the Illinois Human Rights Act, now one of the most progressive laws of its kind in the country. The U.S. House of Representatives was not able to pass a bill that included gender identity. Barack helped make it happen in Illinois.

FIGHTING THE SPREAD of HIV and securing fully funded, accessible treatment for people with HIV or AIDS have always been top priorities for Obama. He understands that the fight against HIV/AIDS requires an approach that is bold enough to set national standards and benchmarks for progress and deep enough to address the forces of poverty, racism, homophobia and unequal access to health care that all contribute to the spread of the disease. Barack has sponsored the Microbicide Development Act to fund research critical to combating HIV/AIDS in the United States and around the world. He spoke out on World AIDS Day to an audience of evangelical leaders at Saddleback Church, publicly disagreeing with the leaders in attendance who opposed condom distribution. Obama has always insisted that our approach to HIV/AIDS be guided by the expertise of scientists, health-care professionals and direct service providers who know what works, rather than by politics and ideology.

In Illinois, Barack worked to enact a law that authorizes licensed pharmacists to provide clean needles in small, controlled numbers, a reform that is credited with achieving dramatic declines in the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users. In Congress, he has supported efforts to lift the ban on federal funding for regulated needle exchange programs that are proven to work in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Experience demonstrates that these programs save lives and protect the public without promoting illegal drug use, but getting them passed requires political courage. Barack has shown that courage.

This race presents a historic opportunity: the opportunity to elect a candidate who has stood up for LGBT equality boldly and courageously for his entire career in public office. His singular ability to inspire unity and support across communities is why we support Barack Obama. In 2008, we deserve nothing less.

Steven Nicks, managing Director of Fourth Sector Investments, has served as a member of HRC’s Board of Governors and is an elected official in New York City, serving on the Democratic County Committee. He co-developed this opinion piece with the Obama NY Leadership team, including David Alport, Jason Haas, Peter Teague, and Maxim Thorn
——————————©
2008 The New York Blade | A Window Media Publication

Here is the direct link:

http://www.nyblade.com/2008/1-.....dObama.cfm

It’s hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the most likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I’m dealing with known quantities. They’ve been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.

The subtext of Obama’s campaign is that his own life narrative—to become the first African American president, a huge milestone in the nation’s journey from slavery—can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient goodwill, intelligence and energy. “It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white,” he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.

But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation’s ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

By Obama’s own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans “are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change,” he recently said. Shortly thereafter he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

* Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).
* Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.
* Expand the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and “double spending on quality after-school programs.”
* Enact an “energy plan” that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a “green energy sector.”

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they’re standard goody-bag politics: something for everyone. They’re so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing Obama of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama’s “universal health plan,” the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell “the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know.” Well, he hasn’t so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: “Spending for retirees—mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem.”

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to “protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries.” This isn’t “change”; it’s sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees—shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama’s main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it’s his standard and also his campaign’s central theme. He has run on the vague promise of “change,” but on issue after issue—immigration, the economy, global warming—he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media—preoccupied with the political “horse race”—have treated his invocation of “change” as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation’s major problems when, so far, he isn’t.”

Wrong. Dead wrong. Those who vote for our enemies, the kind of enemies who ignore or scuttle our agenda, i.e., the Democrats and Republicans, vote for four more years of bigotry in DC. Our goal should be to be organized and ready to pick up the pieces when the Democrats self destruct. They can survive because their base is far to the left of the party hacks and owners. The creation of a party that can contest for power with the right wing is the most important item on our agenda. The Democrats are not that party and they are not capable of being reformed. They are just Republicans in drag.

John K. “Tell me how allowing the party who will not enact ENDA, the Matthew Shepard Act, repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or allow gay couples to have any recognition whatsoever supports the GLBT struggle.”

It doesn’t. You just described the Democratic and the Republican parties. You made my argument for me. I can’t imagine why anyone would support either of those parties. They have only cosmetic differences. If your goal is to see antigay, anti union, prowar scam artists like Obama or Clinton elected just say so, but don’t try to get us to believe it’s because they’re on our side – they’re not and they’ve demonstrated it time and time again. The fact that tens of millions deliberately refuse to vote for either is testament to the fact that your desire to elect our enemies to validate your over the top naiveté is dead in the water.

It’s because we’re a tiny, tiny percentage of the vote — what, maybe 4%? On the cost-benefit calculus that they use to determine many of their political positions, the cost of supporting gay dignity is too much. That’s why Bill Clinton gladly signs DOMA and then runs radio ads touting it in the 1996 election (apparently Bill protects the sanctity of all marriages but his own…). They will sell out gays time and time again.

Barack Obama, I think, is different. He sees gay rights as a worthy end of their own, and he doesn’t only talk about gay rights in certain contexts. It’s why the guy has made the scapegoating of gays a feature of his basic stump speech. He’s wrong on marriage (and I hope he learns from Deval Patrick, Russ Feingold, Eliot Spitzer, and Al Gore that Democrats shouldn’t be afraid of endorsing marriage equality), but he’s right on everything else. Clinton isn’t, and she can’t be trusted.

Um, yeah, that was a real specific response to a pointed question. Jesus, pal, you’ve never got anything constructive to say. It’s always “don’t do this” and “don’t do that.”

Sorry, but I live in the real world, not the Nevada mud flats.

Prejudice against gay people really is generational. Sure, there are differences between education levels, and between religions and cultures. But those are tiny compared with the generational change. People over 60 are, with few exceptions, opposed to gay rights. People under about 30 are, with very high probability, strongly supportive. Most of the young people know friends who are gay. Most of the old people know only a hated stereotype.

Clinton fails to appeal to the young. She is just hammering the traditional elderly Democratic base.
Obama is getting many millions of young people, most of whom support equal rights, to come out and vote.

Getting high turnout and involvement from those idealistic, energetic young people may be much more important than any policy difference between the two platforms.

After Obama gets them out to vote in this election, and gets them involved in politics generally, all of our politicians will poll those voters for the next legislative session. Then, all of our politicians will be saying, “There go the people. I must follow them…”

Where the people lead, the politicians will follow.

A Republican is a baboon in a people suit with a totalitarian christian attached at the thigh.
A Democrat is a Republican in Drag.

Eight years olds are forgiven if they believe politicians, Frisco lawyers, priests and used car sellers. Grownups have no excuse.

Who needs Republicans with Democrats like these?

Of course, there are still too many Dems who are homophobic, and more that are transphobic. But, again, LGBT issue are not my primary motivation in this [or any] election.

I fear, however, that he would be more likely to pick another woman VP and she a black male VP which IN THEORY would still be great but would not aggregate the same number of votes that H & O would.

However it evolves, I hope the end result is the same: the Republicans wandering the proverbial wilderness for years to come!

I’m a little confused about what you were saying about Obama’s position on states rights. The first sentence of the third paragraph of your post was a little confusing. However, it is my understanding that Obama obviously doesn’t want to mandate that every state pass gay marriage/civil union laws within their state. If he did, our discussion of DOMA would be moot. And, as you point out, Hillary is no better on this issue. I understand why Obama’s antics might piss you off and turn you off to him, and that is your prerogative which I don’t fault you for. I just happen to personally place more weight on not having DOMA than I place on Obama’s political maneuvering. Same goes for his comment about the AIDS test and his omissions about homophobia being immoral. I’ve always said that if a candidate said that s/he thought of gay people having sex was disgusting and s/he thought it was sinful, but s/he also demonstrated a willingness, notwithstanding, to support all of our causes including marriage equality, ending DADT, ENDA, Matthew Shepard Act, to appoint gay people to executive branch positions, and was generally willing to separate the personal belief from public policy, I would vote for that candidate. I wouldn’t go out for a beer with that candidate, but I would vote for that candidate. That being the case, I don’t care about a subconsciously homophobic remark from Obama, or even if John Edwards did make that comment about being uncomfortable around gay people. None of that matters to me. What matters is what they are going to try to get enacted into our law.

I’m glad to hear you will be voting for whoever the Democratic candidate is. I am from New Jersey, and I already voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, but I will also definitely be voting in the general election for the Democrat. I have nothing against Hillary other than this slight difference with Obama. If he is unavailable, then to me she becomes the only choice, and not a bad one at that. I do worry that not all of Obama’s supporters feel the same way as me. Just on this blog someone wrote they will vote third party if Obama gets the nomination. I’m not as worried about that as I am about people who never voted before and who would have voted for Obama just staying home. That is also another big positive I see with him.

But to summarize, expert Tribe is effectively saying that your scenario of challenging exceptions to “full faith and credit” via the “message” of DOMA S2 repeal is irrelevant because the tradition, probably even the “case law,” of allowing them was already so ingrained in our legal system without DS2.

BUT the larger point is that Obama has not said he wants to ELIMINATE the states’ right to not just refuse to recognize relationships legalized in another state, but ban them in their own. THAT is the BIG issue. Yes, people relocate today more than they did decades ago, but don’t you want the right to have your relationship within whatever state you are in NOW legalized THERE? To be fair, Sen. Clinton has not suggested such a challenger either. “States Rights” is one super hot potato that politicians don’t want to have to touch unless absolutely forced to. It’s just the game playing, leading voters to believe that he DOES want to end that state level discrimination when he’s only said he will “urge” states to recognize such relationships that PISSES ME OFF!

STILL, let me make clear: I was NOT trying to say I think that Obama is “antigay” as we traditionally think of it. I DO think he retains some discomfort as evidenced by his “frat boy moment” during the Howard University debate when he felt the need to explain that the HIV test Sen. Biden mentioned they’d both had was with HIS WIFE—to great guffaws of laughter from the audience—who had sat on their hands when he earlier admirably said that homophobia was an obstacle to fighting AIDS [not morally WRONG, mind you, which is what he should have added—but better than nothing].

I DO think that he is also far less “committed” to proactively advancing LGBT rights than he claims, than Sen. Clinton is. I cannot prove this, of course, but only point again to our complete absence from his huge, written plan for “change.” Again, Sen. Edwards who had been wrongly libeled for allegedly saying years ago that he “was not comfortable with gays” [which I never believed] devoted an entire page in his plan to LGBT issues.

STILL, I WILL vote for Obama if he gets the nomination while hoping he doesn’t. At his worst he is better than any Repug at their best, and I believe for the most part that he would make the right decisions in the area that is MOST important to me, and mentioned by others—future Supreme Court appointments.

I just hope that all of his fanatical supporters would be as willing to vote for Sen. Clinton.

That’s why we have 3 supreme court justices, HANGING on to retirement when we have a new President. I guarantee you within 1 year of a Democratic Prez all 3 will retire.

………

………