He definitely connected with his audience, and he worked some themes that were reminiscent of the recent Massachusett’s governors race. Like Deval Patrick, he appealed to hope and asked the members of the audience to make his campaign their own and, through it, to reengage in political life to realize their own values. The crowd particularly enjoyed Obama’s response to critics who say he doesn’t have enough experience, giving him vigorous applause for the line that he has enough experience in Washington to know that things need to be done differently.
The event also supported some smart campaign tactics. Tickets were offered inexpensively ($23) to students and at moderate prices ($115 and $230) for general admission, ensuring a large and enthusiastic crowd filling the floor and seats of the arena (in addition to the sections reserved for a healthy number of big donors.) Volunteers worked the crowds of students to sign up canvassers for the campaign’s first planned state-wide canvass in New Hampshire on May 19th.
We were transfixed by the Red Sox comeback after the event and missed the news – I’m curious if or how the event was covered. The Globe printed a photo, but didn’t have a story about it today. Guess it’s still early for presidential politics, but the 5000-person crowd was impressive.
Did Sen Obama have anything to say about the new Equal Rights Amendment or equality under the law for LGBT people?
<
p>
His website addresses neither under the Issues section, as far as I can see. ERA, in particular, should be a no-brainer at this point. Under “Strengthing COmmunities & Family” (because he has no civil rights section, it says
<
p>
When will Sen Obama consider legal equality for women and access to marriage for all couples important steps in “eliminate[ing] roadblocks that parents face and provid[ing] tools to help them succeed”?
If you’re voting for the perfect candidate on marriage vote Kucinich or Nader… if you want to win in 08 don’t demand answers from the front runners that will satisfy Massachusetts at the expense of every other state. (Coming from a gay guy)
you may think it pointless to discuss being treated like a full citizen by a presidential candidate, but i don’t. and just how is raising the question here, on a blog for fooks sake, “demanding answers”? you want to keep supporting the candidates who say “trust me but shut up” and who find time to give whole speeches on religion but nary a word on civil rights, go right ahead. me? no. i don’t shush in the dark corners for hillary or barak. sorry.
Laurel, you can make your point without making nasty insults and questioning the motives of the person with whom you disagree.
“Warning” me that my question on a blog might help us lose in ’08 is obnoxious in the extreme. If Migraine has some secret wisdom behind his/her stance, then s/he should share it, not try to squelch discussion.
And I certainly don’t think that anything you say personally will have an impact on anything, certainly not the 08 race. In fact, I generally really like what you have to say on a variety of subjects and tend to agree.
<
p>
My point on this front isn’t that you shouldn’t ask questions of candidates, rather that everyone should be conscious of what demanding answers on fringe issues does to our candidates on a national level or in states that swing. Obviously, I too have worked to secure equal marriage rights here in MA and care deeply about the subject… I would just hate for a candidate to answer a question in the affirmative about marriage equality here in MA, and to have to watch a Republican commercial play that declaration thousands of times to influence people who just are not as “enlightened.”
<
p>
2 more things… First, if marriage equality is the most important federal issue to you then as I suggested you should vote for Kucinich or Nader and blast away at the viable candidates from the way left. That sounds productive. Second, I defend the top-tier candidates like Hillary and Obama not because I want to see either of them as the nominee… I just want them to remain viable should they get the nomination. I’m a Bill Richardson guy.
i guess this is the crux of our disagreement. i don’t believe that civil rights are a fringe issue. i think civil rights are a vital core issue. notice that few of the POTUS candidates bother to have a “civil rights” tab on their websites any longer. sad.
Civil Rights = Not Fringe
Gay Marriage = Fringe
<
p>
Another example, of a fringe issue within a bigger, non fringe issue:
<
p>
Fair Elections = Not Fringe
IRV = Fringe
<
p>
Not that they’re bad issues, I support all 4 of the above. I simply don’t understand why you seem to be charging forward with your point while not actually dealing with my main point, which I’ve already explained (and you’ve ignored) twice…
… but I don’t think I’m going to get an electable Democrat for the 2008 presidential race if I make support for marriage equality a requirement.
<
p>
Obama’s been pretty good on GLBT issues, no worse than the other leading Democrats (see his letter to the Windy City times at http://www.windycity…), and certainly better than any of the leading Republicans. I don’t mean to let down the tribe, but other issues are looming on the national level: the war, energy policy, economic inequality.
<
p>
I had a friend in 2000 who had to vote for Nader because there was no meaningful difference he could see between Gore and Bush. Guess he had the last laugh, right?
it just saddens me that not one major candidate that i am aware of cares to mention civil rights today. and i’m not talking about just LGBT rights. this is why i mentioned the ERA above. why is this not a rallying point, or even worth mention? it is a sad day when progressives and dems deem civil rights a minor issue, when women, 50% of the population, are still legally less than in many states.
<
p>
marriage equality? clearly not one major candidate will discuss it. but that is NOT the only civil rights issue facing LGBT people. there is so much more a candidate could champion, such as non-discrimination in employment and services. and how about wage parity? all this platitudinous talk about poverty, yet no mention of wage parity (not to mention offshoring)? c’mon! get real obama et al.!
He did not mention LGBT people at all. I noticed that he left us off his list.
I was there.
<
p>
He mentioned young people, seniors, vets, students, working families, those with lots of wealth, and those with little.
<
p>
Surely you fall into at least one of those categories, no?
that there are LGBT people in every walk of life. however, people generally aren;t targeted for excision from the law for the fact of being young, seniors, vets, students, working families, or the wealthy or poor. few of those groups are targeted with lethal violence for the fact of being in those groups. LGBT people are targeted daily with lethal violence and excision from the law and social structures.
<
p>
you see the difference and the importance of being recognized in a positive way by the potential future most powerful person in the world? we have suffered immensely under the current one. we wish to know if we must continue to duck and cover. why does this need to know bother others so much?
that obama did not acknowledge glbt people sufficiently.
<
p>
is this because you want or need personal validation, or because you worry that mr. barack obama doesn’t really know anything about citizens who have been “targeted daily with lethal violence and excision from the law and social structures.”?
Early in his speech he said something like how it’s great seeing a huge crowd with [paraphrasing slightly “black and white, young and old, straight and gay, Christian, Muslim and Jew, (etc).”
I was there too. I thought he did, but couldn’t remember the line so I didn’t claim it.
<
p>
Now, did he expound about issues that are specific to LGBT? Nope. He didn’t expound much at all, truth be told.
At the national level, which party was the one that did the most for gay people? I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but the fact is that it was the Republican party, with its reduction of income tax rates and the elimination of the estate tax rates. Now, it’s clear that the Republicans did not intend to benefit gay people by those acts, but the fact is that they did. My (same-sex) spouse can inherit my estate free of federal estate tax.
<
p>
What do the Democrats want to do? Reinstitute the estate tax. So that my (same-sex) spouse will have to pay a federal estate tax on my estate when he inherits it.
<
p>
Down 1 for the national Dems.
<
p>
At the national level, which party was in power when DADT was enacted. Um, the Democrats. And, they controlled both houses of Congress.
<
p>
Down two for the national Dems.
<
p>
At the national level, who signed DOMA into law. Oh, yes, the snake-oil salesman from Hope Arkansas. And he pimped his message on christian radio during the 1996 election.
<
p>
Down 3 for the national Dems.
<
p>
NB: When did the snake-oil salesman from Hope Arkansas try to make nice to gay people? It was in 1998, when he was being pursued by a federal prosecutor over the Lewinsky affair.
<
p>
That was it. Down 4 for the national Dems.
<
p>
And, just who did Kos throw his support for in the (I believe it was) 2004 South Dakota election for the House seat? An anti-gay Dem (forget her name). Down 5 for the national Dems.
<
p>
Let’s see. At the national level, the Dems have done nothing for gays. Republicans–whether intentional or not–have. I’m sure that the “progressives” here might try to explain it away, but facts really are facts.
<
p>
No, up one for the Dems. What was the policy before that? Even if you don’t tell, you can’t serve. So, the Dems (Clinton et al) created more opportunity for gays to serve than there were previously, and I suspect have helped pave the way for an “integrated” military completely irrespective of sexual preference.
<
p>
DADT isn’t great policy — but it’s way better than “No Gays Allowed ™”, and it’s a step toward no discrimination at all.
<
p>
That’s up one for the Dems.
<
p>
<
p>
At the national level which party’s Congress passed it in the House and the Senate? The GOP. Did they get lots of Dem votes? Sure. Would it have been even on the agenda if the Dems ran the show then? I doubt it.
<
p>
That’s even GOP Dem.
<
p>
<
p>
It’s just about 10 years later, and when has a GOP president made nice to gay people? Oh that’s right, never.
<
p>
That’s a better-late-than-never up one for the Dems.
<
p>
<
p>
Irrelevant. Kos doesn’t speak for “the Democrats” and at the same time Kos also understands that so long as we have Democratic leadership in Congress, progressive causes (including equal rights issues) have a far better chance. Do you really think the GOP candidate for the 04 SD election would have been a friend of gay rights?
So, I score it 2-1 Dems instead of your 0-4.
<
p>
The Dems are far from perfect nationally on gay rights. No doubt about that. But, to claim that the GOP has done more for gays based solely on inheritance tax exemption, and then to igonre that DADT improved the situation for gay soldiers and is paving the way for even more improvements, to ignore that the national GOP still hasn’t “made nice” with gays and goes out of their way to use homophobia to win elections and stir up hatred, and to argue that one benefit and a thousand harmful actions make the GOP better for gays than the Dems is just plain asinine unless you value not paying inheritance tax over silly things like genuine equality under all aspects of the law — and it’s not the first time you’ve made this claim.
Re DADT, before “DADT” was signed into the statute books, the regulations against homosexuals serving in the military was just that–an agency regulation. Regulations can be readily changed by the agency involved. Statutes cannot be–repeal of a statute requires an act of Congress. And aside from that, it has been noted that the DA part has been regularly violated, so the DA part is largely merely window-dressing.
<
p>
Re DOMA, you did not contest the fact that the snake-oil salesman from Arkansas not only signed DOMA, but also crowed about his having signed it in Jesusland during the 1996 election. He could have vetoed it. (It wouldn’t have mattered–it would have been passed over his veto.) But he also could have avoided crowing about it in Jesusland.
<
p>
Re It’s just about 10 years later, and when has a GOP president made nice to gay people?
<
p>
I have never said that the national GOP has made nice to gay people. What I did say is that they were the only party that did something that benefitted gay people. And that’s true–as I indicated above, and which you seriously did not contest.
<
p>
BTW, don’t even think for a minute that the inheritance tax issue is not a small issue to we self-employed.
Before DADT, there was an agency regulation that wasn’t going to be changed, no way, no how.
<
p>
After DADT, gays were granted more access to military service. It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t uplifting, it wasn’t a philosophical marvel. It was, however, an improvement in teh standing of gays in the military.
<
p>
You can try to spin it otherwise, but for gays who wanted to serve in the military, they were granted mo’better opportunity than they had been granted earlier, and it was signed by a Dem. No matter how you slice it, Democrats increased access to the military for gays, and that increase (I believe) has helped erode the formalized bigotry in the military, resulting in more and more high level military commanders (and guys and gals on the ground) suggest that hey — these gay soldiers are just as good at lugging equipment, shooting people, and handling the supply chain as the rest of us.
<
p>
The DA gets violated sometimes, sure. Lots of times it doesn’t. Such is the way with all regulations, everywhere. The only laws not violated are the Laws of Thermodynamics.
<
p>
As far as DOMA, Clinton had two choices: 1. Veto it, let the GOP over ride it anyway, and lose the Southern and Western states… and maybe even Mid Atlantic and Great Lake states… all for the bill to become law anyway. It was a lose-lose. So, call it a tie. The GOP passed it, and you’ve pointed out yourself that the GOP would have overriden the veto. Yet you score it as a black mark for the Dems but not the GOP. Why is that?
Look: it’s GOP leaders, both elected and appointed, who incite hatred toward gays. It happens again and again and again and again. The Dems have been working toward LGBT rights in small steps, in small places. It’s not enough, but it’s something. The GOP has one “atta boy” (by accident) and thousands of “aw shits”. My father-in-law points out that one “aw shit” wipes out all your “atta boys.” You’re suggesting that one “atta boy” wipes out all your “aw shits.” I think that’s crazy, foolish, shortsighted, and frankly, greedy to think that the GOP helping out your inheritance is more important than all the hatred they stir up, all the laws they pass or refuse to overturn, and all the judges they nominate. You overlook all that for money. Yeah, I think it’s selfish.
…by the way don’t even begin referring to the “laws” of thermodynamics. I have a physics background, and I’ve read Feynman’s The Nature of Physical Law.
<
p>
Newton’s “law” of universal gravitation didn’t quite work out*. 2d order differential equations (“physical law”) that purport to describe physical phenomena are useful, but they don’t rule the universe. The universe rules the veracity of the equations. I know that, and you should, too.
<
p>
*It was tossed out in favor of General Relativity.
Chosen for you because I do know your background.
<
p>
relax
a pseudo-HTML reference such as /tic (end tongue in cheek) or /sarcastic (end sarcastic) when you are being tic or sarcastic. It would simplify parsing the comments.
<
p>
/tic
in the Senate have prevented a national DOMA constitutional amendment from passing.
<
p>
I understand your disappointment, but come on — this is nothing?
<
p>
And your equation of the estate tax with anti-gay intent or effect is laughable. You must be very wealthy to care about such things. Congrats. Don’t expect the rest of us to shed a tear when that tax comes right back on the books.
…The Republicans in Congress weren’t going to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage because they would want the issue to remain. The same with abortion. If they passed a constitutional amendment (and sent it to the states) the issue would go away. They want the issue.
<
p>
Regarding inheritance taxes, see above. For we self-employed people who have invested for our (and our partner’s) retirement, with property whose value has skyrocketed in recent years (through no fault of our own), and when aggregated with the value of life insurance policies (they are also included in inheritance tax calculations, as I’m sure you know), the value of an estate for estate tax purposes can actually be quite large. The Republicans’ elimination of the tax equalized the burden on gay and straight couples–zero. It is a significant issue for me, and the Democrats want to re-introduce the tax, resulting in an unequal tax burden, which could be quite considerable.
<
p>
It really is as simple as that. Dems at the national level have done nothing for gay people. Republicans at the national level–probably unintentionally–have.
If the Republicans voted for it, it can reasonably be inferred that they wanted it to pass. Whether it was a cynical symbolic gesture can be argued. Either way, you haven’t addressed my point that the Dems prevented it from happening, which is simply beyond debate. That’s just a mathematical fact.
<
p>
I don’t care to comment on your particular estate situation, but I do support the estate tax as a matter of fiscal sanity and economic justice. Insofar as the law could use adjustments for greater fairness for SSM couples, fine.
Either way, you haven’t addressed my point that the Dems prevented it from happening, which is simply beyond debate.
<
p>
What I thought I had made clear was that the Republicans don’t want to vote in such a manner as to have the issue go away. If a constitutional amendment against SSM is passed by the Congress and sent to the states and ratified, the issue would go away. And the national Republicans would not want that to happen–that is, they would not want the issue to go away. It brings in too much money to the party. Shaking the money tree, as it were. I really doubt that the national Republicans are serious on that issue, and I seriously doubt that they are serious on the abortion issue, either.
<
p>
On the estate tax issue, I will vehemently disagree with you, with the following proviso. If the federal government were to eliminate its current spousal deduction, which basically allows opposite-sex spouses to inherit tax free, I would not have much objection to the inheritance tax. Therein lies the rub, and that is the source of the discrimination against same-sex spouses. Until that is eliminated, no, I will not agree with you. It would be a substantial discrimination against same-sex partners/spouses/whatever for the federal government to tax me and mine but not “you and yours.” (I don’t know nor care whether you are hetero or homo, but you understand what I am referring to.)
I decided to go to the event at the last minute. He’s a rock star, but there was no soaring oratory. He was, however, correct on all the issues in my book. Having been there in the hall in 2004 when he burst onto the stage, this was not even close. Not that it had to be, mind you. As Barack himself said, this was a fundraiser. I think we heard basically the same thing we’d have heard if we were in someone’s living room.
<
p>
But his operation is very organized. Here’s my proof:
<
p>
I decided to go at the last minute with my S.O. and the very nice people manning the door wouldn’t let us in without our parting with a cool $230. It was ticketed like a hockey game or concert, so you couldn’t get in without going through the turnstiles. Again, very good crowd and money tactic. When we got in, we saw a lot of the same old muckety-mucks sitting in the “luxury boxes” miles from the stage, which was funny. Also, we weren’t able to enter the seating area without taking a sign-up form for canvassing in NH on May 19th.
<
p>
We were all outta there by 8:15.