The Visible Vote
If you all are on your computers reading my crap instead of watching The Visible Vote on LOGO, get thee to a television. (words I never thought I'd have occasion to utter.) Democratic candidates addressing LGBT issues directly, live. More later...
-------------------------------------------
OK, I have to say, I just loved listening to Dennis Kucinich. I have no idea why they didn't have his (hot!) wife on the stage, but hey, whatever. I mean, OK, he sounded kind of hippie new-age in a few spots: (and I may not get the verbiage word for word, so cut me some slack)
I see the Equality sign here. I've got the same sign up in my office, in Washington DC. Now imagine that sign, encased ... in a heart. (draws a heart shape in the air)
He went on to talk about the power of love. Later, he spoke so passionately and sincerely about love, and also the depth of love he feels for his wife, and how devastated he would be if they were not legally able to marry. He went on to talk about how important GLBT rights are to him -- spoke for some time about it, and damn did this man sound so sincere. He did not sound like a politician, he sounded like a guy just talking about what's important to him. I mean, you could practically feel his belief in these issues coming through the screen. I got teary eyed. I clapped alone in my living room when the man was done.
-sigh-
I know he's too much of a left-wing hippie boy to get elected. And personally, I am not convinced he would actually be the best man for president on all the issues. The president will need to fix this global mess we're in, and need to be really strong and experienced on international issues. (Thanks, Dubya.) But damn. He sure would be the best man for the job on the issues affecting the gay community. And for healthcare.
------------------------------------------
OK, Bill Richardson just blew it:
Oops.Melissa Etheridge: Governor, do you think being gay is biological, or is it a choice?
Bill Richardson: It's a choice.
ME: I'm not sure if you understand the question; do you think we are born this way, or around 7th grade, we just decide, 'oh, I wanna be gay',"
BR: (looking pained) Well, I'm not a scientist .... ... I don't like to answer definitions like that that are perhaps grounded in science or something I don't understand.
----------------------------------------
Doh! Melissa just called Hillary out.
----------------------------------------
OK, I did not mean for this to turn into some kind of review thing, I basically just wanted to remind everybody to watch, because I meant to do that earlier today.
I liked Obama, because I like Obama, although I do wish he would step forward about the marriage thing. I see what he's trying to say about how marriage should be completely separate from the state anyway, but still. It isn't.
I actually liked some things Edwards said, more so than I usually do, even though he's not my man. He came out pretty strong in support of separation of church & state. He seemed a little ... trying too hard to convince on some things. A little hokey at times.
Gravel ... y'all that man is just a trip. Weird. He just leaves me scratching my head. Watch him for the entertainment value, if nothing else.
Clinton, well, she's not perfect, but I have to say, I am impressed with how she comes across as such a strong leader. I thought she did well tonight. I don't agree with everything she's about, but I'm never going to find a candidate I'm 100% happy with. I'm still undecided, but am leaning more from Obama toward Clinton. Slightly. Still undecided. She seemed comfortable tonight. Some, like Richardson, and even Gravel, seemed downright ... well, not comfortable.
But, I'm tired of of writing about this, so you all watch it on YouTube if you didn't get a chance to see it.
16 comments:
Richardson totally blew it. I also noticed that Edwards referred to the Florida woman who was fired for being transgender and decried how awful it was for "someone to be fired because of their sexual orientation." Oops -- do we need a vocabulary lesson, John? Granted, they're nervous -- but I'm really impressed when people listen.
Kucinich and Gravel have the best position papers, but ... (here it comes) Hillary is my girl.
Red: Yes! OK, if you're a straight person, and you're getting ready to go on friggin' LOGO --- get educated! Orientation? Sheesh.
I'm still undecided, but yeah ... Hillary keeps impressing me with her leadership and experience. I'm not happy with every single thing about her, but unless we get a presidential panel instead of a single person, that ain't gonna happen anyway. To me she's still a good balance between strong leader, but still in the right place on teh issues.
I was particularly impressed with the respectful way that Sen. Clinton answered Melissa Etheredge's rather stinging question. She knows how impatient the LGBT community is, and she totally gets that -- but she's got a long-term view on the issues, and she is confident that she'll take us where we want to be eventually. Which is what Richardson was trying to say, although he completely flubbed it up.
I'm also happy that she defended Bill's record re: Don't Ask Don't Tell. Too many people (many of them gay) seem to believe that DADT was a) Clinton's idea -- when it wasn't -- and b) that it was a step backwards -- when it wasn't; Hillary is absolutely right; in '92, it was a step forward, and now we're ready to take another step forward, and this time it will work.
I can't help but think that she feels the same way about the marriage issue. Get civil unions on the books, let people get comfortable with them, and eventually the vast majority of citizens will look up in ten years and say, "wait ... why can't gay people get married? That's just STUPID" -- and it'll happen.
And Hillary's right -- it's hard to be patient. But it's a little easier when you know that your leader really gets it -- and I think she does. I'm sold.
If Obama or Edwards gets the nom, they'll have my support. But at this point, I'm really hoping it's Hillary ...
Hmm, Dish Network doesn't appear to offer LOGO in my area. As for Richardson's "slip," I feel the need to point out that, far differently from the Holy Trinity In The Lead, his actions speak towards his support for the gay and lesbian community far more eloquently than his words, and that's important. As New Mexico's governor, he's extended civil rights legislation to cover gays and lesbians, got into a showdown with state conservatives by threatening to veto a New Mexico specific DOMA law and has spoken out against DADT. Hell, he even appears in Pride parades himself, not sending his wife or just his "warmest wishes".
I'm not sure we're focusing on the right things here. Who really cares if he thinks it's a choice or genetics, so long as he supports policies that allows gays and lesbians to live public lives? Do you have to give up all personal opinions in order to be considered a good candidate? It seems that's what we're asking for, candidates that say the right thing all the time, the right thing being whatever it is we specifically want to hear at any given moment. Then, when it actually comes to doing the right thing, meaning the things this country is supposed to be about, we act surprised that they don't follow through. How can we be surprised when we've basically said, "Words speak louder than actions?" I'd far prefer someone to be honest so I know where I stand with them instead of pouring sweet poison into my ear.
So long as he protects me from being fired for my "choice", denied housing or healthcare for my "choice", denied access or control over my partner in times of personal emergency because of my "choice", or being anything less than a full citizen of my home country because of my "choice", all of which he's done (and what, exactly, have Hilary, Obama or Edwards actually done for the gay and lesbian community?) then Richardson can think my homosexuality is a choice and even think it's a choice I'm going to hell for. He's a human being and entitled to an opinion. I'll take the legal protections he's offering and worry about changing his personal views later.
Hilary sent shivers down my spine...she seems like just another slick politician. I'm still not sold on her.
I agree about Obama though...he needs to step up and come clean before I can make a decision.
Regardless, it was great they all showed up for this discussion. Kudos to all the candidates and LOGO/MTV.
QJ: I personally hate the "choice" question. Arguing from that position makes me feel like a total victim, i.e., "I know being gay is awful, but I can't help it; I was born this way." Furthermore, I didn't choose to be gay, but if I had a chance to take a magic pill and be straight tomorrow, I wouldn't do it; therefore, I would choose to be gay if that were a choice I could make.
However, Richardson blew it mostly because it was clear that he was completely uncomfortable on that stage, and because he had never considered the question before. If he had calmly, confidently said, "I don't know if you chose to be gay, and I don't much care. If it's a choice, it's a valid one, and shouldn't diminish your rights to employment, housing, or legal recognition of your relationships," the crowd would have went nuts. He didn't. He froze like a deer in the headlights.
Worse was the moment when Solmonese asked him if he'd sign a marriage bill if the New Mexico legislature passed it, and he totally dodged the question -- which, of course, answered the question. I'm not saying I hate him or anything, just that he bombed last night, and probably lost some LGBT votes.
Okay, here is where everyone is about to hate me:
I don't think this is a good time for the first woman president. (ducks shoes)
Nor is it the best time for the first African American president.
(ducks rotten fruit)
And my only concern with either is that, trying to clean up this goddamn Bush mess is going to be really hard. And any backlash is going to be used as a reason not to ever have a woman and/or black leader. Because people in general are short sighted and stupid. Gee, cynical much? Don't get me wrong, I think Hillary and Obama are, for the most part, simply terrific. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing them on the same ticket next year. I just worry that whomever 'tis who wins is going to be under some severe scrutiny about how to fix the muddy muck this administration has put us in. And to use the novelty of it being a woman or a black man as the reason behind whatever trials will no doubt prove to be, well - it just seems to be inevitable. (ducks tomatoes)
I dislike all the candidates in some way or another, but am falling head over heals for the elf. He says all the right things, and is not very electable. *sigh* Not sure who I want to endorse yet, but am starting to lean away from Obama a bit. Hillary is just too slick and wishywashy, Richardson dropped the cinder block on his own toes, and I want to fuck the hell out of Edwards. Where does that leave me? I guess we still have more time to sweat it out...
Eric, that's exactly the point. If a gay or lesbian voter chose to not even view Richardson as a potential candidate based on the LOGO debate, which is what seems to be happening around the watercooler, then that voter has once again chosen style over substance. It is then laughably disingenuous for that voter to act surprised when the eel they vote for fails to live up to their expectations.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that the only candidate on that stage who had done substantive things to improve the lives of gay and lesbian men and women had never considered that question before. What I find much more likely is that in opposition to The Soundbyte, The Hairdo and Hills, he doesn't have a huge political analysis staff grading and choosing his every response to a potential question and then coaching him hours on end. He gave an honest opinion on a question that was, frankly, irrelevant. Now he's trying to do damage control because we as a voting group are more than happy to be baffled by the bullshit The Holy Trinity test market and then sell to us.
I don't care if he freezes in interviews or doesn't come off as polished as The Hairdo. He's gotten the job done in New Mexico and made measurable improvements to gay and lesbian civil rights. To me, that's the only thing that matters: can he get the job done?
Whew, I was out for one day, and look what I missed! Well it's late and I'm tired but what the hell:
QJ: I hear you on the words v. actions thing. That's a very good point. Record should be more important than sound bytes. However - with the mess Dubya's left us, we DO need a leader who can think quickly on his/her feet, who is not only strong, but can project that strength to the world. I just can't see Richardson negotiating with Iran or Pakistan. What if he puts across his ideas there in the same manner he did to the GLBT audience last night? Also, we've had 8 years with a guy who is inarticulate and sounds like an uninformed idiot. I'm personally looking forward to a president who can project intelligence and considered opinions, as well as one who inspires confidence. I'm tired of a president who makes me cringe every time he opens his mouth. You are right, we should not elect based solely on charisma, but I do think it matters, and is something to consider in the mix.
Red: I was glad to hear Clinton's explanation of DADT as well. I was in the military living with 6 gay roommates BEFORE DADT, and she's damn right, it was a huge step forward at that time. I think DADT has paved the way for knocking the whole issue out of the military once and for all. I was glad she took the time to go over that, because over time, DADT has (rightly) become this big negative thing, but it served a purpose at that time, and wasn't negative when it happened.
Rodger: welcome! Yes, I'm SO glad to see the different formats, like the YouTube, and especially the Logo forum -- too bad the Republicans all declined to do the same. I've heard others say that about Clinton as well. I'm not sold either, but I have been impressed enough to lean more toward her way than I was.
Hat: I didn't throw that tomato. Actually my daughter and My Bitch (I've really got to think of a new name for her) have talked about that same thing. Yeah, definitely something to think about, I think it will likely happen. However, I think it's like people having a baby --- if you wait for the "right" time, it'll never happen. (except that sometimes not having a kid IS the right choice, so that's not the best analogy, but what the hell.) There will always be some issue to make it the wrong time. No matter when it happens, the first black person or woman will end up a scapegoat behind anything negative, and their gender/ethnicity will always be blamed by some. I just don't think there's any getting around that. But yeah, that does worry me.
Tater: whoo, Edwards would've really been uncomfortable if he knew how many mens would like to make him their bitch. I know it's all over the Internets, he's cute, I guess, but I'd take Obama in a heartbeat. Mmm-hmm. Or Kucinich's wife, ha!
I've been considering that, Cowbell, and here's what I think (because I'm sure you're breathless with anticipation. :) ) For the longest time I've said that the President is a fairly ornamental position in this country and being charismatic is all you need to be "good" at it (aka, the Reagan Years). After the last eight years, I realize this isn't true. An imbecile in that office can hurt, particularly a bull-headed imbecile surrounded with a coven of Satan's minions who seem bound and determined to start a nuclear war so they'll have access to the fall-out shelters.
Eight years of mismanagement ranging from laughably inept to unquestionably illegal has put this country in a bad spot. What I think we need now is a worker, someone who wouldn't hoist up his junk in a flight suit harness and land on a Navy carrier to say "Mission Accomplished" when it was painfully untrue.
Richardson may not be the most charismatic, but he obviously has enough to get things accomplished. He's also still got enough humility to apologize if he does offend or admit he was wrong.
That's what we need, I believe, someone who views the job as an almost sacred responsibility and understands that you do the work and when you make a mistake you own it, apologize, learn from it and try not to make it again. That sort of human humility would be a breath of fresh air after eight years for the "Fuck Up Till Forty" who treats the office like he's entitled to it and doesn't understand why the rest of the country isn't as willing to bail him out of the shit he gets himself into like his daddy's friends used to do.
Hillary is my girl!
QJ: Substance is clearly more important than style, but as Cowbell points out, style is a skill that a leader must possess. I can use the Bush administration as a perfect example of this. The man has no earthly idea what he's doing, and it's apparent every time he opens his damn fool mouth and says something stupid. His "advisors" are running this country, and are not held accountable by the public.
I've heard, incidentally, that Richardson runs NM in much the same way -- he surrounds himself with smart people and THEY get things done -- which sounds good on its face, but we see how well that all worked out with Dubya. Yes, I want the President to surround him/herself with smart people, but I also want someone who can think logically under pressure, who listens to the questions being asked of him/her, and who can communicate his/her complex ideas clearly. Governor Richardson is not that person. I think Senator Clinton is.
I like Kucinich as head of Health and Human Services or a similar post...still undecided on who to support for Prez.
Missed the debate- great catch-up post!
QJ: one thing i do have to say for Richardson is that he does apologize when he's wrong, and he does seem a hell of a lot more humble than our current Bumblefuck. I do think there is merit to what you're saying -- it's not black and white, by any means. I don't dislike Richardson, I just can't really envision him running things. Thanks as always for your always thought provoking take on things.
Red: I hadn't heard that about Richardson. QJ has some valid arguments. In a choice between substance and charisma, of course, the substance. But damn, can't we just have both this time around? I think we are going to need it, in a big way.
Smartass: You're my girl. Ack -- Miert a neved meg itt van? Will you fix that already? Internet freaks, hello! Sheesh! Do not make me pull out the wooden spoon. Hiányzol nekem. Szeretlek.
Allan: I was too much of a slacker to do an actual review type deal. They're playing it again on MOnday. And YES, I would love to see Kucinich in there -- i wish we could have a presidential panel, instead of an individual. On the other hand, that would just add red tape and process, and it would be hell when Republicans were in power. Never mind.
I'm leaning towards Obama,but I do think Hillary's experience gives her an edge.
Either way,I think that it's about time this country stepped up an elected a woman,or a black man president.We have the most viable candidates before us..
Not that my opinion counts for much.Currently,I'm not allowed to vote.What with a felony conviction and all.Perhaps along with recognizing gay marriages,we could grant voting priveledges to those that have "paid their debt",as it were.
Still,if I had my 'druthers,I'd like to see Martin Sheen get a third term on "West Wing"..Now there's a President!
Post a Comment