NH outreach to lesbians & gays was quiet; Obama HQ refused statement on LGBT issues at all.

...Members of the local LGBT community turned out, as did two New England gay political stars - Barney Frank, the Massachusetts congressman, and David Pierce, a state representative from Etna in northern New Hampshire, near Hanover.

Frank, as is his custom, emphasized that the fortunes of the LGBT community and of the Democratic Party are inextricably linked, dismissing Republican Mitt Romney as "synthetic" but warning that John McCain poses the greatest threat. "We have an important role to play in this election," he told the crowd. "We in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community need to work on changing the atmosphere of hate and fear that is sweeping this country. We need to improve the lives of all GLBT people and by working to elect Hillary Clinton for president, we can do it." He acknowledged, as well, the role that his sister, Ann Lewis, plays as a chief honcho in the Clinton political operation.

The leading Democratic candidates had small groups of staffers handling LGBT requests about their campaigns and calling on local gay businesses, such as bars and restaurants, and other organizations to drum up support. Candidate flyers, bumper stickers, buttons, and brochures were piled high in several such establishments.

Curiously, though, calls and visits to the official Obama for President headquarters in Manchester to get an official statement or to interview staff or volunteers proved unsuccessful. No one associated with the campaign wanted to go on the record, or even comment on background, about the Illinois senator's posture on LGBT issues.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19187115&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=569342&rfi=6

:eyes:

:kick:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but sooner or later, if he's the nominee, he'll have to try to make an appeal to GLBT voters. I just don't understand this arm's length approach his campaign has towards us. We're a part of the Democratic Party as well as any other group.

Does this talk of "uniting people" mean that we GLBT Democrats are to be completely snubbed?

If he did, he wouldn't be promoting the whole 'separate but equal' civil union stuff.

Really, any candidate that doesn't believe equal marriage rights either doesn't have a clue or is having way too much fun playing politics.

We are not part of his equation.

It was obvious even before the McSinger thing if you were watching closely. Sadly, I am always watching.

Hypocrites are not hard to spot if you have many years of experience.

and then signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Indefensible Marriage Act"?

What was their name again. Bill and Hillary something or other, wasn't it?

If I believed Bill = Hillary, I suppose I could hate her a lot more too. But she was just a top advisor, she never had the final say, she wasn't the president. How do you know Hillary would've made the same decisions Bill did? On the subject of LGBT, how do you know that she isn't more committed to gay rights than her husband? Women are generally less homophobic. Perhaps Bill is too much of a "good ol' boy", but in contrast Hillary is a fag-hag, who would never throw us under the bus. You can say you doubt that's true, but you can't say there's any proof it isn't true, just from her husband's record.

He can sit back and continue to woo evangelicals and homophobes. After all, what are we going to do, vote Republican? :sarcasm:

In other words, business as ususal.

we have no other choice. (except NOT vote.)

that is why, every election, we are tossed under the bus by the democrats, and are the bogeymen of the republicans.

:shrug:

how Clinton will be any more progressive on GLBT issues, unfortunately. Sigh.

:pals:

I need to make an OP for more reasoning on this but have not had the time. I am a Kucinich supporter - but as of today Im not voting for him. I will still tell everyone out there about his ideas etc - but I will be asking for them to vote for Clinton. I know Im shocking myself too, but hear me out - I feel in the long run Hillary will do more to break down sexism which I believe has the same roots as homophobia and transphobia, Im not a single issue voter - so thats not the only reason, but I truly feel that all the candidates have a long ways to go on GLBT rights - but I feel her presidency will break down more walls than the other two on this issue.

(I should note up until a few weeks ago I would never have even considered what I wrote above)

I recently switched from John Edwards to Clinton. I DO want change and having a woman who has always supported women's rights as our President will do that. I also have other reasons, but that is one of many reasons.

I completely agree.

Thanks for playing though :)

There's a big difference between having some self hating hypocrite sing a couple gospel songs (although he shouldn't have done so) and actually signing laws into effect that are a direct betrayal of promises made to the gay community.

"Oh but that was Bill, not Hillary". Horseshit. Either she was involved in Bill's decisions, or the whole "experience" argument goes right down the toilet. :hurts:

and what preceded it?

They caved to homophobes like Sam Nunn and came up with a half-assed compromise.

Bill Clinton should have said to the bigots what Truman said in 1948. (Or what he said to Monica in 1998.) "Suck it!!"

forbidding gays in the military. Clinton came into office and, first thing, tried to make good on his word to strike down the regulation by executive order.

The entire military establishment, the Joint Chiefs, all Republicans and most southern Democrats came down on him. They said that if he wrote an executive order, they would pass a STATUTE amending military law to forbid gays and lesbians.

He fought with them while the press lambasted him for doing this immediately upon taking office, and ended up compromising with DADT so as to avoid Congress passing a veto proof statute which today would still be on the books.

You did it better than I could have.

I am afraid your factual response won't matter however - he/she is on a fact free Hillary mission.

or on anything else for that matter. Look at how the Clintons campaigned in 1992 and then what they actually delivered.

I really don't understand why the LGBT community isn't behind Dennis Kucinich 100%, when he's the only candidate (OK, Gravel....) who is actually committed to full equality.

Yes, if you're a bigot that's now been PC'd enough to hesitate when that little voice in your head wants to shriek the N-word, no worries! Throw a fag under the bus! Don't fret; nobody in the Democratic leadership will stand up for them!

Not really---I don't think they have the consciousness for that.

It's interesting to read in the article, that the two women decided on supporting Hillary after the ABC debate. I did too. I think that debate had an effect on a lot of people.

I'm supporting Edwards, who I believe is marginally better than Obama and Clinton on gay issues (even though he does have a stupid hangup about the word "marriage"). And, I know about the homophobic "ex-gay" preacher.

But, Obama doesn't seem to be hiding his pro human rights positions. They are right there on his website.

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
Human Right Campaign Questionnaire: http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf

Throwing people under the bus is an ominous sign of what the new unity means. I'm a straight man, and I know I don't 'get it': I don't know what it is like to have someone deny my identity or existence, but I do know where these train tracks lead to. Obama's campaign is running to the right of Clinton's in more ways that one. The first question I would like answered is, who's next? The mentally ill perhaps?

He threw the early boomers under the bus first. Then gays. Then women.

I am glad Obama is left-handed or I would be worried about my favorite nephew.

:spray:

you see his campaign doesn't want to accused of having the "Democrats' disease."

about the Illinois senator's posture on LGBT issues."

The Advocate: How did this happen? Was Mr. McClurkin vetted?

Senator Obama: Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues -- at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see.

Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn’t undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have.

The Advocate: Some black gay activists I’ve spoken to say this doesn’t make them question Obama the senator, but it does make them question the campaign -- do they really understand the nuances of these issues, are they really sitting down and talking with gay folks, because it seems like this decision came purely through the lens of faith?

Sen Obama: Look, these kinds of issues are going to crop up inevitably through the course of campaigns. It’s important to recognize that these are issues that every Democratic candidate who has African-American ministers as supporters may have to confront. It just so happened that it popped up on the screen in this particular instance. But I assure you, I am not the only candidate who’s got a black minister or a white minister who’s supporting them prominently who subscribes to similar views.

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done. I believe that’s important. We can try to pretend these issues don’t exist and then be surprised when a gay marriage amendment pops up and is surprisingly successful in a state. I think the better strategy is to take it head on and we’ve got to show up. These people of faith may be operating in part out of unfamiliarity, or they may be insular in terms of how they’re viewing LGBT issues, they may not understand how what they say may be hurtful, and the only way for us to be able to communicate that is to show up.

The Advocate: I know you’re in a difficult position here trying to balance these two constituencies -- but by keeping McClurkin on the tour, didn't you essentially choose your Christian constituency over your gay constituency?

Sen Obama: No, I profoundly disagree with that. This is not a situation where I have backed off my positions one iota. You’re talking to somebody who talked about gay Americans in his convention speech in 2004, who talked about them in his announcement speech for the president of the United States, who talks about gay Americans almost constantly in his stump speeches. If there’s somebody out there who’s been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is.

One of the things that always comes up in presidential campaigns is, if you’ve got multiple supporters all over the place, should the candidate then be held responsible for the every single view of every one of his supporters? And obviously that’s not possible. And if I start playing that game, then it will be very difficult for me to do what I think I can do best, which is bring the country together.

Look, when I went to Rick Warren’s church at Saddleback, he was under enormous heat because, among his constituency, my position on LGBT issues and my position on abortion is anathema. So his position could have been, we will not have Obama speak because he does not subscribe to our views on these two issues. To his credit, he allowed me to speak, in his church, from his pulpit, to 2,000 evangelicals. And I didn’t trim my remarks, I specifically told them, “I think you guys are wrong when it comes to issues like condom distribution.” And by the way, I got a standing ovation.

My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with them. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights.

At some point, if we are going to have a conversation on these issues, what I expect to be judged by in the LGBT community is, have I been a strong advocate, have I been a forceful advocate, have I avoided these issues in any way. And If I have not, then that’s how I expect to be judged.

more: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

and...

Sen. Obama made a telling comment at the very end of my interview with him last October. Dismayed over the level of attention the community gave to the McClurkin imbroglio, he said, “It is interesting to me and obviously speaks to the greater outreach that we have to do, that isn’t a greater source of interest and pride on the part of the LGBT community.”

He seemed genuinely disheartened that people didn’t know more about his stance for full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (Edwards also supports full repeal, while Clinton supports partial repeal), or the fact that he sponsored a gay nondiscrimination bill in the Illinois state legislature, or that he regularly addresses AIDS and homophobia in black and religious venues that are not particularly gay friendly.

When he spoke about HIV/AIDS to evangelical leader Rick Warren’s congregation at Saddleback Church in California, Obama said, “Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes – to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say ‘This is your fault. You have sinned.’ I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.”

This is perfectly consistent with his message of bridging communities gay and straight, red and blue, black and white. But a big part of why many gays and lesbians don’t know Obama’s record here is because it wasn’t readily available. It required digging and a beat reporter covering his campaign at the national level – resources that are the province of mainstream magazines and big-city dailies. This is where a publication like The Advocate, viewed by many as essentially mainstream media, doesn’t actually have the same reporting capacity as those other outlets. Instead, the LGBT community and gay journalists were left to put together information piecemeal from sightings by bloggers at campaign events and the slow trickle of gay mentions that flow from the straight press.

more: http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid51483.asp

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Both articles written by Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate.

"While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say ‘This is your fault. You have sinned.’ I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners."


Transfusion recipients, heterosexual women, and orphans are the "good" type of HIV/AIDS survivors, but cheaters, young people and gay men are evil dirty sinners, apparently. Senator Obama has no shame.

that much is clear. Bigotry is something he cares about only if affects him. Not others.