The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell issue was certainly a major topic of tonight’s forum. The candidates had different things to say but were against the policy pretty much across the board.
Check three of the Democrats’ takes on the subject…
Hillary Clinton:
Bill Richardson:
John Edwards:
HOW TO EMBED VIDEO: See the small blue downward-facing arrow in the blue cube at the bottom of each video? Click that, then click “Embed.” Copy the code and post the video wherever you want!
Posted: Aug. 10. 2007 at 1:58 AM EDT
Digg This
You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO_ixw5fThQ
I was in the ARNG in the Pre-Gulf War build up; was asked to rejoin for the pre-war build up during Clinton's Administration. I did not rejoin the Armed Forces at that time because of Don't Ask Don't Tell. I was a Whistler Blower when my partner in training was nearly raped by a seargant during fire duty. We were both under harrassment and surveilance by the seargants during the investigation of that incident. It turned out that the seargant had raped several young teen-age/early twenty year old women from her barracks. My mother had gone to Barbara Boxers office to gain aid for some circumstances of myself being harrassed and threatened due to the fact that I supported my best friend.
After that time I felt that the politics of rank and order combined with sexual harrassment and the penalty of a prison sentence for being homosexual in the army/navy could threaten me mentally, emotionally, physically and career wise. If I rejoined with a high security clearance, a background check would definately reveal my relationship and lifestyle and that although I found out that military intelligence accept homosexuals because they are good double-agents the threat of blackmail would be too high if say I disagreed with anyone in command for any reason.
During the pre-September 2001 strike I had known for years that there was a war agenda on the horizon. Professionally, I had to be in the closet about that. On the day of 911, I sent emails to associates who were retired CIA and MI and their associates could also pass information to them. In a summary, I gave my scenario of potential security holes in airspace. Of course those were theoretical but they were based on my old career in security. I could have been a security specialist in many areas of government or corporate but chose to not gain security clearances to protect my private life.
I feel that people like me who are assets to our country and the American way, who are specialists in varities of intelligence operations, who are wasting talents and resources because of being marginalized will have opportunities to participate in our democracy once we are allowed the freedom to openly use our intelligence instead of hiding our selves to keep under the gaydar. I have seen Hilary openly recruit smart people onto her teams. She seems to know that intelligence preceeds sex.
I was very sad to see your comments. This event is so historic, and it was so exciting to see so many presidential candidates with the courage to attend and answer direct questions. (And by the way, did you miss the question to Edwards about how he would handle the coming out of a transgendered staff? I thought the question was very on-point.)
Moving on, I want to comment on the language used by the candidates. Did anyone notice that Hillary continually used the term "these" people when referring to the GLBT community? It was almost as bad as saying "you people." It sounded very strongly as if there is a huge divide between her and us. Further, she promised almost no support in many respects. She understands where we're coming from, and she thinks we're doing the right things. But, she doesn't think Bill could have done more, and her statements of support were weak. From previous debates, I thought I supported her as one of my two favorites. Now, far from it.
In stark contrast, Edwards used "those" people referring to people in the south who were historically against racial equality. It was obvious who stands with whom.
Senator Kucinich obviously has the message that matches up most closely with our community's views and goals. After the You-tube debates, I decided I wanted to hear more from him. I enjoyed his courageous and direct answers. I don't know, however, if he ultimately has enough support to get elected. That is very unfortunate.
I changed my mind at then very end of viewing the video clips from supporting Barack as my favorite candidate. His messages of hope are truly needed as we repair the fear and mistrust that has overtaken the country due to GW. However, NO ONE more clearly demonstrated (not even Barack with his message of hope) that in their heart they have felt and they can empathize with our struggles and us as a people than Edwards. As he spoke on homeless gay teens, transgendered persons, and his upbringing and his family's stance on racial inequality, I felt his conviction, understanding, and empathy at a person level not shown by any other candidate. Further, while he's not there on marraige over civil unions, he was honest and direct. I thought Richardson's comments on "what is achievable" sends too much of a message of "we achieve only what others allow us to achieve." Edwards simply stated that was his view.
Also, I am impressed that his wife so strongly supports gay marriage, and is open and honest about her views. Part of GW's problem is that no one has been able to sit him down and give him a reality check during his term in office. I think that Ms. Edwards, and any effective first spouse for that matter, could play a strong role in bring the president back to reality. Who better to help us see when we've made a mistake? This could be very valuable asset in Edwards.
So... for now Edwards for President, Kucivich as Vice! (Or maybe Barrack, or here's a radical idea, maybe Guliani?
As for Obama, I love his can-do attitude, but he will nuke the 'enemy' without recognizing that we are our own enemy... no dice there.