Here’s what some of you thought of Obama:
Barack is the only candidate in my opinion who consistently answers questions from his gut and from his heart, and is not just spewing talking points. You can see his mind working to formulate an answer that is meaningful and truthful for him at that moment. He is (dare I say it?) extremely articulate in that sense. I think he’s got a solid core of good values that I believe and trust he will use to do the right thing if he’s elected. That doesn’t mean he won’t compromise his position at times if it means getting things done vs. being in a stalemate with Congress and accomplishing nothing instead. Experience or not, he’s got my vote. You can learn through experience what he’s already got nailed.
Chris C.
I’m a lesbian and I LOVE OBAMA! He is the only candidate who makes sense and is straight forward. He has my vote.
Renee
Senator Obama has not only the best credentials in this race - he also has the most courage. His answers were straight forward and truthful - and he truly has talked about gay issues in the public spotlight for years. We WILL have a friend in the White House come January 20, 2009 and his name will be President Barack Obama!
CameronF
Digg This
And just to be clear, Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, was asked, after Obama's foreign policy speech, if he thought anything he'd heard sounded naive and he said, "no." I think if you look hard enough, you'll find that any instance of somebody calling him naive has originated from a Democratic opponent and not from anybody legitimately trying to provide sound commentary on the individual works of these candidates.
Personally, I feel like any Democrat is going to be astronomically better for politics in this country than a Republican will be, but the notion that Hillary has more experience is laughable. She has served in elected office for less time than Obama has (I didn't say national elected office, I said elected office). Her only executive experience is in being female face of a governor's mansion and White House. It's not as if she was invited to the Sit. Room during her husband's presidency, so I don't know precisely from where she is claiming to have acquired this foreign policy "experience." If foreign policy experience is what you want, why aren't you voting for Biden? He's got loads more of it than anybody else does.
Let us not forget that the combined foreign policy experience of Rumsfeld and Cheney led to the engineering and execution of the most significant foreign policy disaster of our time.
I would just implore everybody here (and everywhere) to consider the talking points coming from the campaigns and the major news networks before spewing them out at their peers. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Hillary has more experience than Barack or that she really knows how to use it; remember, she voted for the Iraq War and believes in giving the President "the benefit of the doubt."
i find it pathetic, yet somewhat shamefull, that both Dennis Kucinich AND Mike Gravel polled better on the 'who's your candidate' on the visibilevote08.com thingy
In addition, Obama told those in a private conference call after the debate that he would continue supporting the GLBT community in the general election, speaking to non-gay audiences and Independent and Republican voters, in the same manner he does before gay audiences.
End result: Barack leads the online poll at LOGOonline.org, where you can also view video clips from the debate: He has a strong 42 percent of the vote, followed by Dennis Kucinich with 24 percent, and so-called frontrunner Hillary Clinton lagging behind with only 17 percent of the online vote.
The first ever Democratic "debate" on GLBT issues was actually more a conversation between panelists with the Democratic candidates, one at a time, than it was an actual debate. Sen. Barack Obama was the first at bat - being the first to have responsed to the request to attend the debate.
Nothing substantivively new came of the debate. The candidates' positions really didn't change. All three in the top tier held steady with their support for civil unions and against marriages for GLBT Americans.
All three - Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards - also called for a repeal of DoMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) that defines marriage between a man and a woman and also authorizes states to pass bills that could either ban marriages between gay couples and/or any equivalent benefits.
But Obama was the only one of the three major candidates who unequivocally stated he remains fully opposed to DomA - and has been, on record, since he ran for the U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton stuck to her script of wanting to repeal the portion of DomA (section 3) that allows the federal government and states to prevent civil unions but stopped there - indicating she would continue supporting language from the original DoMA signed by her husband that states marriage is between one man and one woman.
Perhapst the biggest surprise from the evening came when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson suggested that homosexuality is a choice - drawing gasps from those in the audience.
Back to Senator Obama, who handled the conversational tone very well with moderators and was the only candidate who used the word "transgender" in the debate and also the only one who factually mentioned the more than 1,100 benefits that come with marriage - clearly showing he has done some studying on the issue.
"As president of the United States, I'm going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available," Obama said - also noting how he addressed the same topic during a forum of black ministers in Tennessee.
"I specifically talked about the degree to which the notion of gay marriage in black churches has been used to divide, has been used to distract," he said. "I specifically pointed out that if there's any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then you should tell me, because I haven't seen any evidence of it."
The clincher came in a press call after the debate, in which this writer was able to directly ask Senator Obama a question.
The question:
When you are the Democratic nominee for president, how will you address GLBT concerns in the general election - and how will you specifically respond to concerns from Independent and conservative voters who misrepresent the fight for GLBT equality as being a fight for "special rights"?
I was very impressed with Barack Obama's response to me and to all others in the private conference call, in which he cleverly noted the days of "You Tube" and home videos prevent any candidate from pandering to different audiences and getting away with it. He further noted how he will continue to engage all voters in discussion and appeal to their sense of common humanity without changing his principles or his beliefs, reiterating his unequivocal belief in civil rights for GLBT Americans as being one about equality and not one about special rights.
"Truth is easier to remember," Obama said, then specifically mentioning how he speaks the same whether in a church or at the HRC Forum.
He pledged that he will continue speaking from this place of truth and encourage conservative voters to focus more on the greater issues that have a personal impact on their own lives - such as Iraq and health care - and to move beyond divisive politics because the Republican fear tactics of the past no longer work today.
So while the ball didn't go out of the park, Barack Obama clearly did make it home by the end of the inning - leaving the other top tier candidates lagging behind with their continued efforts to pander for votes ane make it to base.
It should be noted that lower-tier candidates Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel both showed political courage in calling for full marriage equality in the name of marriage for GLBT couples. I give each a lot of credit for this.
But, overall, I still believe in my heart that Barack Obama has the most authenticity, diplomacy, practicality and leadership skills to effectively navigate the political waters for an election victory that will unite America and bring GLBT Americans closer to the American dream.
We are also right now, among other very powerful personal and global issues, in the midst of the largest economic mess since 1929. Anyone who follows the capital markets can likely see this is the truth. The right winger’s greed and mean-spirited agenda did not just burn the gay community; they have set fire to the world, yet again.
We need a President that knows how to get things done very fast. And one who can from day one command the respect of the world, this is not just about us. This is not being melodramatic, some very informed people every day are sounding the warning bells, but not nearly enough people are listening. We desperately need someone who can hit the ground running in order to avert global disaster and no one is in a better position to do that than Hilary. No one else can walk into the White House and be right at home like Hilary can and if we ever needed someone like that it is now.
Obama indeed has some very good points, I might even vote for him in 2016. Of course his “religious” position against gay marriage is arguable on many fronts, not the least of which is Christian history itself, something even most clergy even seem to know very little about. Hopefully he can clear the cobwebs from his mind by then, but for now, good or bad, the time it would take even the best man to position himself in the White House might take more time than we have to spare.
Yes, Obama is wonderful, and there is no disconnect. What is also exciting for me is that he can talk religion in a heartfelt way like none of the Republican (or Democratic) candidates, and that will go a long way in the general election. On top of that, he's part of a Christian denomination that supports gay marriage! Who else can make that claim?
Joseph,
Cameron didn't give you the citation but I can:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/9/165515/9741
Obama is polling well among Iowa Republicans. Who knew?
While on the subject of tonight's event, I think it is worth saying that Edwards surprised me in all of the positive ways that Richardson surprised me in negative ways. I'm still fearful that we'll see a last-minute switch to a white male and have Edwards as a candidate, something that I fear only as a devout Obama supporter, but I think Edwards is a good man, and I saw today something I hadn't before.
As a bit of history, I'm a straight ally (apparently this has been a surprising revelation on other parts of these forums) that grew up in the South. I was raised with strong views of tolerance and never really cared one way or the other about gay rights... I wasn't discriminatory in any way, I just didn't consider these issues as I had no real contact with them. Then I went to college, and my roommate/best friend was gay, and my world shifted. It has since become one of the issues I'm most passionate about, and I've been an HRC member since November of 2004 (for some obvious reasons... "State's rights" to define marriage chief among them).
The point here, regarding Edwards, is that I see in him a bit of my old self... he's lived in a bubble, and it isn't any lack of respect or recognition of need for change, but merely a lack of familiarity and exposure that makes him seem in-ideal. Obviously, he also has a religious barrier that I don't share, but his general belief in full equality for all citizens is heartfelt, and tonight was the first time that it was clear to me that that belief of his trumped his religious beliefs and that he is nothing but underexposed to the true struggles of the LGBT community. Does this make him an ideal candidate? Absolutely not! But I think he's got more to offer than certainly I was willing to give him credit for. That said, I still fear him taking Obama's nomination.
"Hillary completely lacks substance, experience, and direction."
And yet she spoke tonight as if she'd already been president before didn't she? ;)
I love the points you made about Obama. I have been drawn to him like a moth to flame since he was elected in Illinois. So many say too little experience, however, that isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. Although, if he had to wait 4 or 8 years, I could live with that as long as he gets there. His family is like the United Nations of Camelot. He's brilliant and he's telling the truth! There is no disconnect between what he says and what he feels as there is with most politicians. (Hill for sure) Would I trust him to be my leader? Absolutely! Do I think he would be a force to repair damage with nations whose respect we have lost? Absolutely. (I am forgiving the 'nuke' remark until I find out the context and what was actually said.)
(Off topic, but the drill is thru to the mine and there is oxygen in the air to support life !!! Yea!)
After watching Barack dismantle his opponents over Pakistan this week I can't believe people are still trying to say that he's not experienced enough for the job. His is the only foreign policy stance that is "tough, but smart."
"Experience" clearly didn't help Hillary vote against the most egregious foreign policy blunder of our generation, so I can't see that it's very useful if, in fact, you can make the argument that she has it at all.
Tonight, well, at the HRC/LOGO Presidential Candidates debates we got a taste of what she thinks: and it appears that she's a person who will throw us under bus (another friend's take), under the guise that she was avoiding throwing us under the train.
I doubt that there is a Lgbt person in America who shares her belief that the problem with her husband's "Don't ask, don't tell policy" (DADT) is that it was "applied poorly." Really? Hillary refuses to admit, must less apologize for any mistakes (sounds familiar?) but without her husband's charm, it's hard to pull it off.
The problem with DADT IS that the policy is blatantly discriminatory against a class of Americans, who should be among our most admired: Lgbt men and women who would give their lives for this country. It also undercuts our military preparedness and strength and wastes our financial investment in hundreds of our military servicemen and women who are expelled from the military simply because they told someone they are gay or lesbian.
DADT is a disgrace that came out of a Clinton democratic presidency AND a democratic house and senate. Hillary's answer affirms the view that she is not ready to put partisan politics behind, much less move us in the direction of hopeful, transforming politics.
And her point tonight that the Lgbt community was better off with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which then-Congressman Bill Richardson voted for and her her husband President Clinton signed into law was simply ludicrous. "Throw me under the bus why don't you" said my friend sitting next to me while we watched the HRC/LOGO debate. No remorse at all: Her argument - times were tough back then in her husband's administration. To prevent the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage it was better to pass an affirmative discriminatory statute against same-sex marriage.
As a man of color this is appalling logic. I hope our civil rights tradition should teach us a few good things: one is that we would never accept the proposition that it is better to criminalize inter-racial marriage and throw the offending couple in jail, because we were afraid that the citizens might lynch them. Wouldn't a law against lynching be the answer? Do lgbt people deserve the reverse? Hillary seems to think so.
As far as I am aware, in her entire time on the Arms Services Committee in the Senate, Hillary has not introduced one piece of legislation to protect Lgbt personnel in the military. What would persuade us to think that as President we could possibly expect an Executive Order/moral suasion for legislation in the mold of Eisenhower, (integrated the armed services) or Lyndon Johnson (civil rights act), or any form of a leap forward in protecting and extending the freedoms that make America, AMERICA?
Who inspired me of the leading candidates: Barack Obama. Sincere, yes. Does he "get" me? Yes. Is he willing to take bold new steps to reunite America and offer us something new? Yes. When Barack spoke about equality under the law I believed him. His constitutional law and civil rights background, and the fact that he is a product of an inter-racial marriage (as I am) helps him understand these issues. He won't sacrifice the wonderful American history of the expansion of liberties and civil right. That I believe and FEEL.
People get bogged down with his responses regarding the marriage issue, and while that's fair (especially in the presence of two candidates that don't falter), but it is important to note that he sees it merely as a semantic difference, and not a substantive one; that he supports full legal equality in all arenas (and without Clinton's strange typical-Republican-talking-point of "State's Rights"); and that his answer really speaks to his eleven years as a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, and his platform of extreme separation of church and State. We aren't used to seeing a candidate invoke the separation to protect the church, but in Obama's view that wall is built blocking entanglement in both directions, and his stance protects his efforts from religious institutions that might otherwise view gay "marriage" as infringing upon their rights as religious institutions.
I agree with Chris C. At this and all other events, Obama speaks from the heart and feels thoughtful and natural when responding to questions. His advocacy of LGBT rights isn't a convenient talking point in from of an LGBT audience, but a genuine, heartfelt core belief, and I think he deserves more credit from the community than some are willing to give him.
But I said when I voted for him in 2004 that I couldn't wait to vote for him for President, so I'll be the first to admit that I'm biased.