Jay & John on Hillary’s dilemma: “Should she stay or should she go now?”
Next Tuesday’s big Texas/Ohio/Vermont/Rhode Island primary is looming. Barack Obama is the current front-runner. The media is still swirling in its pro-Obama love fest mode, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign has practically been on put on some kind of death-watch by the mainstream press.
Is this fair? Is this accurate? And frankly… What do you think Hillary should do at this point? Should she consider withdrawing? Is that ludicrously premature? Does she still have a chance?
And ultimately… Iis it more radical to have a woman as President than an African-American male?
Hmmmm… Watch this week’s “Gay Agenda” vlog below, and tell us what you think.
Posted: Feb. 28. 2008 at 4:05 PM EST
Digg This
You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
She has tried to evoke racist sentiments, she has used slander, thrown mud and she has played victim. I am so sick of that type of "old School" politics. It is the exact reason nothing ever gets done. The Clintons had their chance..they used it to Pass The Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell..two of the most Anti-gay and hurtful laws of our lifetime.
At least Senator Obama has stood up for us in front of some of the most anti-gay crowds in America...that takes guts and a honest commitment to equality.
The Clinton's have broken every promise they've ever made to our community..."fool me once,shame on you...". She'll march during pride, but only in an election year. She'll defend gay rights, but only in front of a gay crowd. We need to let go of our fair-weather friend.
Goodbye Senator Clinton.
(We Still Love You!)
Vote for HIllary ya'll
Hillary has a record of working with Republicans and if my memory doesn’t betrayed me she sponsored and passed successfully around 21 bills.
I dare you to show me the bills passed by Senator Obama.
As far as I’ve seen the records that number was 2.
— A bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
— A bill that named a post office.
If she were to win the presidency, the Republicans hate her so much that they will just sit in Congress with their arms folded, obstructing everything, like they did to Bill Clinton. She is electable but she probably won't be able to govern. Whether she has better leadership skills is moot if no one will follow. Obama can actually carry out the duties of the president, and having Hillary as VP or on the cabinet as a close adviser gives us all the benefits of having her as president with none of the stalemate.
“As God Is My Witness”: Obama Snubs Newsom, Gays
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/29/as-god-is-my-witness-obama-snubs-newsom-gays/
Now things are different but don’t judge based on emotion and words.
Consider, that her years on the Wal-Mart board, from 1986 to 1992, gave her an unusual tutorial in the ways of American business — a credential that could serve as an antidote to Republican efforts to portray her as an enemy of free markets and an advocate for big government.
Anyway…something to think about.
Mike/Chris/Leland – What do you think? Is that a good plan or not? Well too bad, Even if you like it I’m against it. She’s way too experienced at union busting so I hope the Democrats get an idiot for that job if they win.
A vote for McCain, Billery, Obama or Huckabee is a vote for Bush Stout or for Bush Lite – more war, a deeper economic crisis and bigotry
On that same level, what do WE as gay and lesbian people stand for? Gay marriage? I don't think so. Only about 2-3% of us will ever experience a relationship that will lead to marriage. The rest of us have spent a lifetime just trying to find someone special who can stick around for a year or two. We have a very serious problem with suicide and depression within the community which almost always has a chemcial dependency problem underneath it. We are still a people who despise each other, attack each other, exclue each other, and still are an anonymous people who, for the most part, care very little about what happens to other gay and lesbian people. If we can't even respect each other, then why should anyone else? What is some government official going to do to fix probelms that are rooted in a community with adolescent social skills, dishonesty, and infidelity? WE have to fix those things first before we can expect anyone who is not gay to take us seriously. But that will never happen because the amount of contempt that gay people have for each other will never go away. We are at the bottom of the social totem pole, still. And when you are at the bottom, the only people to attack and hurt is each other. Fix that first. Any solutions?
Barack is the symbol of the obsessed and blinded
American Idol like fallowing and yet every time someone tries to defend the one person that has been on the front lines for LGBT community, we get BS like that.
All those accusations are not proven; last time I read the picture of barrack came from the Kenyan government so
I suggest spilling your anger somewhere else.
Second why is it that every time in a discussion, there happens to be one angry Obama supporters ready to insult and accuse?
We have different opinion than yours ,deal with it!
Yelling at us would not change our mind okay.
i wonder if either of these vloggers have been paying any real attention to the race or the issues. to imply that obama has not fleshed out any ideas or that he's "all talk" is completely ludicrous. he's positively wonkish. clinton and obama have both acknowledged that apart from their plans on healthcare and iraq, their positions on most issues are almost identical. except that obama supports a transgender-inclusive ENDA and hillary does not. important? yes. the fact that he recognizes that gender identity is just as important an equality issue as sexual orientation is of tremendous importance, because it means he's paying attention and not just paying lip service to the community to get elected.
further, it is disingenous to behave as though clinton supporters have been fair campaigners. the repeated racial slurs aimed at obama have made my stomach turn more than once. it would not surprise me at all to find out that the recently "leaked" picture of obama in a turban (which shouldn't bother anyone anyway) could be traced to the clinton campaign, just as matt drudge claims.
finally, it sickens me to hear two white commentators dismiss the historical potential of electing a black man to the highest office in the nation as "not radical." clearly neither of them have any substantive understanding of the profound wounds racism has inflicted on ALL people in this country. obama is not a "white" black man; he has embraced activism toward racial equality and social justice for people of color, yet he is also not afraid to speak about issues of equality in front of predominantly white audiences. he has chastised the black community for its historical homophobia. he has challenged people to come together to achieve our potential as a country by eliminating discrimination of all kinds. he is a unique and powerful figure on the american political scene, and whether or not you choose to support him, it is ignorance to claim that his ascent to national prominence is anything less than "radical." i am astounded at these commentators' ability to dismiss that out of hand, simply because of his gender. shame on you!
Barrack devoted followers have turned my stomach!
Americablog is the worst, since they once presented a balanced view, but now they've drank the Kool aid and they are disgusting in their idol worship.
Barrack cannot be trusted and he doesn't have the experience to get my vote.
And he still strikes me as a closet homophobe, as one letter or interview doesn't a life of support for gay issues, e.g., Hillary make.
Unfortunately, Obama supporters behave more like followers of some radical fringe group and have done an excellent job at alientaing Clinton supporters. They have, in fact, been the reason that I won't be voting for him.
As far as a black president vs. a female president. Well, the black population in the U.S. is about 12% and the female population to the best of my knowledge represents more than half of all U.S. Citizens. If you want to elect someone who represents a far greater majority of the population - Hillary is the obvious choice. If you want to elect someone who has the proper level of experience for the job - Hillary is the obvious choice as well.
However, this nomination cycle has proven to be a VERY interesting one for me. It has proven to me that the Democratic Party can be just as blind in their support of a candidate as the Republican Party. I thought we were above that - obviously we aren't. It does however, go a long way in understanding why someone as grossly incompetent as George Bush became President.
I believe Obama will prove to be the George Bush of the Democratic Party - lots of personality - perhaps genuinely likeable - but completely unsuited for the job. The GOP must be ecstatic right now and I can't say we haven't given them good reason.
Filed by: Sara Whitman
I had a friend tell me the other day, the reason why Obama doesn’t say anything about policy or program is because it’s so similar to Clinton’s it would be almost impossible to distinguish the two.
So Clinton does all the work and Obama gets all the credit?
Yup.
Take for instance, the outreach efforts of Senator Clinton- herself, not her staff- with the gay community. Clinton has marched in Gay Pride parades as both First Lady and as Senator. In addition, she has spoken in front of so many LGBT audiences ranging from the Human Rights Campaign, Empire State Pride Agenda, the Hetrick Martin Institute, PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), GMHC (Gay Men’s Health Crisis), and the American Foundation for AIDS Research.
But more specifically, she has sat down and given live interviews to LGBT journalists over and over again, some as small as Gay People's Chronicle.
Obama sat for one live interview with The Advocate. He was there with all the other candidates at the Logo forum. No others. Despite repeated requests to his campaign. If they are out there, I’m looking, asking, and not able to find any.
Compare press releases from each candidate about the brutal murder of a gay teen in California, Lawrence King.
Clinton:
“I was deeply saddened by the recent death of 15-year-old Lawrence King who was killed at his school in Oxnard, CA. No one should face intimidation or violence, particularly at school, because of their sexual orientation or the way they express their gender identity"
“We must finally enact a federal hate crimes law to ensure that gay, lesbian and transgender Americans are protected against violent, bias-motivated crimes. We must send a unified message that hate-based crime will not be tolerated.”
Obama:
“It was heartbreaking to learn about Lawrence King’s death, and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. King’s senseless death is a tragic example of the corrosive effect that bigotry and fear can have in our society. It’s also an urgent reminder that we need to do more in our schools to foster tolerance and an acceptance of diversity; that we must enact a federal hate crimes law that protects all LGBT Americans; and that we must recommit ourselves to becoming active and engaged parents, citizens and neighbors, so that bias and bigotry cannot take hold in the first place. We all have a responsibility to help this nation live up to its founding promise of equality for all.“
Pretty much the same, right? Clinton’s statement came out the day before Obama’s. And you wonder why I feel like Obama rides on Clinton’s coattails?
Because he does.
At the 1988 Democratic National Convention, Ann Richards said, “If you give us the chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.”
What Richards didn’t live long enough to see was not only do you have to dance backwards in high heels, you have to provide all the policy and program. You have to meet with media large and small and endure being called “emotional,” “strident” and “grating.” You smile through “devious,” “power hungry” and having your ankle size subjected to national scrutiny.
People accuse you of having your 28 year old daughter ‘pimped out,” while your competition puffs away on cigarettes clearly given a free pass, even though he is a parent of two young daughters.
Obama only needs to move forward, in sparkling dancing shoes. By being less specific, he can be the perfect screen onto which America projects our wishes and hope for change.
While Clinton has to do the deep dip backwards to prove she’s the smartest one in the room, bending low so she doesn’t hit her head on the glass ceiling.
My friend is right. Obama doesn’t have anything new and different to say. He doesn’t need to because Clinton has already said it.
I only wonder what he is going to do when Clinton is gone because the Republicans will not reach over, pat his arm, and thank him for being there.
*photo thanks to ©Susan Bernstein, 2008.
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/dancing_backwards_and_in_high_heels.php
Please spead the word on March 04!
From the Bilerico Project:
Primary Questions??
Filed by: Steve Ralls
There was a time - not too many election cycles ago - when LGBT families were virtually invisible to politicians, and candidates sat in silence when it came time to speak out on issues important to our community or, even more importantly, when the time came to take action and expand the rights available to us.
Now, with the 2008 race for the White House, much has changed.
As Bilerico reported earlier, Senator Barack Obama recently launched an ad campaign in the LGBT media, reaching out to our community for votes as the Democratic race for the White House tightens. And on February 27, Senator Hillary Clinton sat down for an unprecedented conference call with reporters from LGBT media outlets in the critical, upcoming primary states of Texas and Ohio.
Senator Clinton’s message was clear: She wants lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans to hear directly from her . . . and she wants to take the time to talk with our community about how she will move us forward toward equality.
As the first article from Senator Clinton’s interview with reporters in Texas and Ohio notes, “The Obama campaign declined an interview” with the Gay People’s Chronicle, despite the paper “trying to get live interviews with both candidates after the Wisconsin primary on February 18.”
And while there’s no doubt that a Clinton or Obama presidency would arrive in the Oval Office as being the most pro-LGBT in American history, the courage in speaking up means something, too: Going on the record, explaining your own positions and making a personal, first-hand appeal for the support of our community leaves an impression.
Senator Clinton, surely aware that some tough inquires awaited her, did not shy away from the primary questions that are important to LGBT voters. She met them head-on, and spoke up, once more, for expanding our civil liberties.
Much of the article in today’s Chronicle focuses on recognition of same-sex unions, and Clinton again notes that she, like Senator Obama, supports recognition of our relationships, including federal benefits for same-sex couples.
“[T]he biggest problem is the federal benefits, and I want to change the law,” Clinton told reporter Eric Resnick, adding that the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act is the first thing that needs to be passed. The legislation, which Clinton co-sponsored, would provide benefits to federal employees on par with those offered to married, opposite-sex couples.
Resnick also questioned Senator Clinton about a recent New Jersey report which concluded that civil unions provide a separate, “second class” status to same-sex couples. “I agree with my friend [New Jersey Governor] John Corzine that the report raises some serious concerns,” she said, reiterating that she would support repealing federal law which limits important benefits like Social Security and tax benefits to married, heterosexual couples.
But what struck me about Clinton’s interview was not just that she spoke out, again, in favor of expanded benefits, but that - in the midst of a truly hectic and grueling primary campaign schedule - she made sure that our community heard from her directly. She didn’t send out a campaign aide to tell the LGBT press about her positions, or just issue a press release or place an ad with talking points about the issues. She went directly to the LGBT electorate, via our community’s press, to make her case to gay voters.
That’s significant. It is, as far as I’m aware, the first time a presidential candidate has done so as part of a primary state strategy. And it may mark an important turning point in how the candidates view our community.
In addition to talking with major media outlets like CNN or The New York Times - where our issues rarely come into the conversation - Senator Clinton also talked with our community’s media, too. It’s a credit to the gay press, which has come into its own covering this historic election, and it’s a credit to Senator Clinton, too, who accepted their invitation, took the tough questions and made a case - directly -for our vote.
“No community has been made more invisible than the LGBT community by this administration, and I want to change that,” Clinton noted when talking about the largely silent stance of the Bush administration when it comes to gay issues. “I am committed to the fair and equal treatment of LGBT Americans.”
And as the 2008 race moves on, it’s heartening to know that, this time, we and our families are not invisible. And that’s a significant change in American politics.
Besides, he's beautiful. I think you could place a picture of his noble profile next to a picture of the profile of Queen Nefertiti from the bust in Germany and see the similarities. Obama could be Queen Nefertiti in drag!
If she manages to win Texas and Ohio it would be the biggest political come back ever and that will give her enough momentum to go forward.
I think that not only Hillary’s campaign was unprepared for a fight after Feb.5 but so were her supporters.
We’re kind of use to having her as a fighter and solve her own problems and it took everyone a wile to figure out that she won’t be able to do it all on her own.
And why are women so quiet?…if the things said about Hillary were about Barack there would be war. Why are women not angry?…or maybe they are and will show how much at the polls:)
Anyway, I’ll say keep up the fight and if she wins, being the president would be more than a deserved prize.
As for today's video blog, two comments:
1. The Clinton campaign, clearly, had no plan post-Feb. 5th and as a result, Obama's run the tables since. A consequence of that "strategy" is that you cede the media cycle for nearly a month. I don't disagree that there are media who have treated her unfairly, but it's been exacerbated by the poor Clinton campaign strategy.
2. If Barack Obama had lost 11 straight contests by and average of 33 points and was down roughly 100 delegates, is there any doubt that the media, the Party and Clinton stalwarts would be ushering the Illinois Senator out of the race? If the shoe was on the other foot, eulogies would've been written after the Potomac Primary.