Want to watch the entire Presidential Forum in only six video clips? You’ve come to the right place!
Barack Obama:
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!
Dennis Kucinich:
Mike Gravel:
Bill Richardson:
Hillary Clinton:
Posted: Aug. 10. 2007 at 1:22 AM EDT
Digg This
You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
Alex
Let Freedom Ring!
Paul
My only concern is that the federal government cannot change church doctrine. Although I believe in marriage equality its difficuly for me to understand how this is possible due to separation of church and state and the fact that only the church can reform its own policies to support marriage. Figuratively speaking, Obama is correct in that you can only go so far and hes willing to do so. On the other hande Kucinich's economic policies such as abolishing nafta, fair trade as opposed to free trade, workers rights, and more importantly his positions on war, national healthcare, and education are amazing.
I will support Kucinich as far as he makes it - if he doesnt make it through the primaries we will be left with other options.
Great debate =]
We have been living in a predominately fear-based world. Fear has been the force behind the abuse of power that has been used by both government and organized religion to control people by promoting fear through the belief in separation and alienation. This has been the cause of all war, pain, hunger and dispair.
Bush used the term 'axis of evil' to demonize certain groups of people. This is a pure expression of this distorted view of the world. The only 'axis of evil' is fear and what it promotes, and nothing else.
However the good news is that we are becoming aware that the Truth is that Love (beginning with Love of onesself) is the only thing that matters. Once this is realized, everything else falls into to place. This is an experience within every person's reach. As more and more people become more aware of this, the world is transforming. Dennis Kucinich embodies this awareness.
A true leader should embody the highest aspirations of the people that are represented. The fact that he is a candidate is of tremendous significance. To elect him president would be an expression of America as a civilized nation.
He's right: actions speak louder than words. Though Edwards, Obama and Clinton had prettier things to say, Richardon has brought about more positive change than the three of them combined.
Give him a chance.
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-the-presidential-forum/
Barak Hussien Obama- his name alone is seemingly enough to shake up the male white establishment, but when you take a look at his positions on the issues, it's obvious why he is able to have a name like barak hussien obama and still be a front-runner in this race. up to this point, my reservations on obama have been 1. his support of free-trade 2. his support of mandating private health insurance as opposed to universal medicare 3. he hasn't said he would pull out iraq and 4. his support the politcally safe term civil unions as opposed to marriage citing religious beliefs.
his responses to the HRC's questions were very scripted to the point that i was annoyed. he spoke of instating a "version of civil unions that would include full marriage benefits". he also went on to say it should be up to individual denominations whether to recognize gay unions as marriages. which i completely agree with except: our country has no problem with hetero civil marriages called marriages and to not instate the same institution by the same name for queer civil marriages is not only discriminatory, but a giant waste of time on the part of our government to draft up separate legislation for civil unions...
overall i feel like obama knows what he needs to say in order to get the GLBT vote, but i don't think if elected he'll do anything for our community.
Jonathan Edwards- has tried to appear to care about the working class, but also support free trade and prides himself as being the first fool in the race to call mandating private health insurance a universal health care plan.
During the forum he started to go off on tangent about how he visited the LA gay and lesbian center and how inspired and saddened he was by the youth some of whom are homeless because they came out to their families. he said it wasn't fair to use religious faith as an excuse to not provide civil rights for GLBT folks. he described his feeling towards these issues as a journey that he's still on and he doesn't know where he'll end up. but when asked where he thinks he'll end up, he totally fucked up any credibility he gained through that speech he said that his position hasn't changed. it was funny because you could see the frustration on the panelist's faces (especially mellissa etheridge).
Dennis Kucinich- this is the candidate i support because as i have pointed out before, his positions closely resemble mine ie. peace, choice, single payer not-for-profit healthcare, fair as opposed to free-trade etc.
during the forum he was asked if there was area in which he and the HRC disagreed and he couldn't think of anything. and it only get better from there. this forum only solidified his platform of peace and civil reform.
Mike Gravel- i feel like i would probably support him if Dennis Kucinich weren't running. i don't know how i feel about his healthcare vouchers plan which would be determined on projected need...my gut says it's silly because i don't see a way to fairly distribute these vouchers. but in either case, i appreciated his candor in the forum.
he rejects that the word marriage is a religious term because it predates religion. he questioned why he any GLBT would support any candidate other than one who supports full equality including marriage. i like gravel, he's a premium s**t-talker.
Bill Richardson- he didn't do so well. he supports "doing what is feasable" in order to gain queer civil rights, meaning he does not support full marriage equality. even when asked if a marriage equality came accross his desk would he sign it, he paused for a minute and reiterated that he "supports what is feasable and what is feasable is civil unions..." again you could see the frustration in the room.
Hillary Clinton- performed like a slightly better-spoken version of Obama...that's really all i have to say about her.
the only surprise was how horribly Richardson performed.
(Gravel 2008...rah rah...)
Thank God for Kucinich.
Kucinich 2008
Given this, I think striving for legally sanctioned "same-sex marriage" is not the best way to equality. The better solution is to take the word marriage out of government! Replace it with "civil union" or "legal union" or whatever ,and let churches, synagogues, mosques etc. continue to marry whoever they choose, while the state issues civil unions to everyone. This gets rid of the ambiguity, it protects religious freedom, and provides the same rights to everyone.
Let me know your thoughts.
How can you be "not Washington" and get things done *in Washington?* That's precisely why I think I"m going to support Hillary, because she understands the way things work and can manipulate the system to the best of her ability, and not supporting yet another person who gets into the White House just to have all of their wonderful ideals stamped upon.
Those are the people we look back upon and are hurt and angry that they "threw us under the bus," not because they necessarily didn't want to get their ideals through, but because the reality of the political situation didn't let them. They didn't really understand that it would be impossible, with hundreds of factions fighting against them, to get their ideals pushed through.
The New Mexico governor was trying to make that point, I think.
Edwards is a jerk for many reasons - the most - for letting his wife say he is more feminine than Hillary Clinton - and I guess that is why HEIL COLTER said John Edwards is gay. But not to defend neocon - Colter, whom I dispise, but if John Edwards thinks that his sick dying wife's life is best serving his campaign which is placing more stress on her daily and hastening her demise, then Elizabeth is wrong. Mr. Edwards has NO CLUE how women feel if he can't have sympathy for his dying wife. Also, I cannot relate to any man paying $400 for a haircut.
Richardson is a Hispanic Catholic American who will be worse than Bush when it comes to dealing with the illegal immigrants in this country and he flip flops like a pinata whenever he is uncomfortable with a question he cannot answer honestly. Plus I don't believe him to be an honest man in general and we are also not ready for a Hispanic president of his ilk either. I mean, haven't all of us had enough of hispanic president bush yet?
Hillary has already had her shot in the White House (for 8 years) and I don't know about her really - she's not for gay marriage but then she's married to Billy Boy- so I don't quite blame her for being soured on the institution. Maybe she just doesn't want gay people to suffer like she has so I'm tossed about her.
Gravel doesn't have a chance in hell - too old. Kucinich comes across like an actor auditioning for the role of the lunatic brother in the WES CRAVEN movie "PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS". "let's chop this up and do this..." He's very eager without any planning. BIDEN is strong but I think it's going to be CLINTON & BIDEN AS PRES (HER) & Vice (Biden) in the long run.
Kucinich 08
I have been financially supporting John Edwards so far. I believe what he says and I like mostly what he stands for. I was hoping that by now, he would get closer to Baracks position on Gay marriage/civil unions. John Edwards still seems to be having a lot of internal conflict. I hope that he will eventually come around, but it needs to be a lot faster.
Again, I appreciate all of the candiates taking the time from last night. After last night, I'm a little less inclined to support John Edwards and much more interested in supporting Barack Obama. Especially after last night - I'm even less likely to support Hillary.
...Judith Butler and Michael Warner have both written about the possibilities of same-sex marriage in a way that questions how desirable it really is -- doubts (among queers) about legalizing same-sex marriage usually stem from concerns in Queer Theory, not "simple" "straight-forward" politics.
Simplifying greatly -- marriage confers legitimacy, yes, but also implicitly delegitimizes other relationships. Queers of ALL kinds (LGBT and OTHERS) have suffered up to this point under the arrangement; the worry with same-sex marriage is that it would only extend legitimacy to CERTAIN queers, and endorse (and strengthen) the idea that the government has any place at all in deciding whose relationships ought to be valid.
Basically, even with same-sex marriage, there will still be losers... people whose relationships will STILL be under stigma... not only by straights, but possibly by newly married gays and lesbians, newly legitimized, transferring the burdens of shame to other parties.
To suggest that voting for anyone but Kucinich (!) will send a message to the Democrats is absurd. I think it's great, wonderful, amazing that the top of the heap Democratic candidates came to this event, but let's face it, this is a minor issue in the big scheme of things -- remember a little thing called Iraq. Hillary shows her understanding of the political process more than any of the others. She knows that a politician has only so much political capital -- would any of us, no matter how much we want full equality, have her use it up on these issues instead of the more pressing issues of foreign policy?
I was impressed by Mr. Gravel more than all the other candidates combined. Mr. Kucinich seemed a bit of a radical and all the rest seemed unconvincing as true supporters of Equality for all Americans. They all had excuses why they wouldn't support full equality.
Did you notice that Hillary hasn't tried to introduce bills that would repeal DADT or DOMA? Why must she wait to be president in order to help the LGBT community? She's a powerful Senator today; there's a lot she could be doing now. She blames the Republicans today, who will she blame if she gets in the White House? Terrorists? Russians? Carl Rove?
If Hillary is the best friend the LGBT community could get in Washington, I'd rather take my chances with our enemies. At least they don't pretend to be our friend.
remember that is just one setting!!!
I was disappointed to see that they just asked questions about glbt community issues and not all issues in general. Im afaid that we come of as all we care about is our issues and that is not the way
most feel. I care about all issues!!!
One candidate asked the question, when did the word marraige defined a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is the unity between two people who love each each other and want to publicly and legally make that commiment to each other and have it recognized.
Our founding fathers stated that all men are created equal and have been endowed by their Creator (God which is my belief) with certain unalienable rights, one of which is the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.
In the GLBT community, some of us have had our lives taken from us because of our sexual orientation.
We do not have the Liberty to be not discriminated against in our workplace, armed forces, schools, churches or in other places and not be fired once it is known that we are gay.
We are not allowed to have happiness by marrying the one we love and have that love legally and publicly recognized and having the rights that come with such a union.
I strongly believe our unalienable Creator given rights are being trampled upon by Judgemental and Discriminatory persons in our Pulpits and Governments.
What I would like to see is that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom (for all people regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation)and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
The question is, after hearing each of these candidates who do you think will best fight for
us. Let your finger answer that question on election day.
Everyone wanted more time to get into the details. Great format, I hope it influences future debates, so we can see the conversation beyond the soundbites.
However, Hillary has proven time and again that she is an establishment politician who is not willing to step on too many toes. Plus we don't need to help create a new political dynasty, The Clintons. Who will be next, Chelsea? They have so much money and power already that they need not deliver on all of their promises (as seen during Bill Clinton's presidency), a constant danger to the LGBT community. It's just too easy to come back later on and say 'hey, we really tried, but in the end did nothing, sorry!' I am voting for Kucinich, and when Hillary wins, I wish us all luck. Obviously in her heart she thinks we deserve gay marriage, etc., she just can't afford to express her true thoughts. I'd rather vote for someone who says what they really think for now.
Most of the Democratic candidates were at the HRC / Logo Presidential Forum (otherwise known as the “gay debate”) last night. These things always scare me. It’s not that I don’t completely agree with civil rights for gay people;...
To comment to the person who had so much against Hillary because of her husband...Get over it! Bill Clinton was not the first President to have an affair, he was just the first to be "Set UP" to be caught, what normal human keeps a dress unclean as evidence in a sealed plastic bag for TWO years? I respect Hillary more for standing by her husband and keeping face than I would have if she had went to the Enquirer and smeared her husband.
Hillary has a great education and she has worked very hard to get to the point she is today.
And the United States NEEDS a Woman for President.
During critical events, such as this Presidential Forum, that give the GLBT community a time to speak out and attract increased media and political leverage it is especially necessary to remember and include everyone that you represent. There was no conversation about health insurance policies increasingly adding clauses that don't allow services for people who are diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, there was no conversation about the Real ID ACT, there was no conversation about the issue of safe bathroom facilities in public and government facilitates, and these are just a few issues facing the Transgender Community. It is not that the issues you discussed are not important to me or the Transgender Community or that I don’t understand you were given a limited amount of time. It is however, my feeling that this is a continued practice by large organizations representing the GLBT community to discriminate amongst their own ranks in fighting for the equality we all so very much want and desperately need to survive. Thank you.
--Dennis Kucinich on The Visible Vote '08, GLBT Presidential Forum, 9 August 2007
Please check out dennis4president.com and www2.kucinich.us. thanks.
It is totally appropriate to discuss the legal implications of marriage separate from the religious meaning.
How about this-- ALL unions are "civil" unions recognized by the government and carrying the rights currently available to the married couples. Then when anyone gets "married" in their church, their church recognizes that marriage and the couple calls them selves married. So a conservative chruch is not obligated to preform gay marriages if it chooses not to. But same sex members of a liberal congergation would be able to get married in their church. A church could decide not to reconginize straight marriages, too, if they wanted, though I don't see that happening.
Lastly, after each marriage is preformed, you walk down to the courthouse and file your paperwork. Your marriage is then recognized by the state as a legal civil union, carrying those rights.
Is everybody happy now?
Hillary is too 'Washington' to trust to do anything.
Her "if we don't have the votes, why try?" attitude is terrible, and offensive.