Yuku free message boards

For me, Hottie, I don't think the question lies in a comparison of the candidates but in the issues that are important to the person. My issue with Obama is not simply his turning from his liberal roots. Recent issues have only intensified feelings that I had when attempting to settle on a candidate after Edwards' withdrawal from the primary.

In South Carolina Senator Obama hired a black gospel preacher to work as a singer on his "gospel bring out the vote" tour of the state, despite the fact that the man was and is a fervent homophobe. When cries went up for the GLBT community Senator Obama gave his word that alhough Donne McClurkin would be staying with the tour, he would not be preaching his message of hatred at Obama events. Then McClurkin was recorded at an Obama event spewing his vile. Senator Obama made the choice that the black vote was more important than the GLBT vote - he wanted the vote so badly that he allowed the hatred and religious intolerance against the GLBT to be used as a rallying point in attracting African-American religious voters in the South. Personally, to me that sounds similiar to Karl Rove's strategy for turning out the Fundamentalist vote. GLBT rights is a huge issue for me but I also view Obama's actions as raising the question: Who is the next group to be thrown under the bus?

In addition, there was the Senators refusal to do any interviews with any of the GLBT press until the Philadelphia Eagle's, the local gay newspaper, cover story and editorial prior to the Penn. primary. The cover was dominated by an interview with Senator Clinton and a large blank area in which sat a tiny box of print referring the reader to an editorial inside the paper. This editorial stated the number of requests - over 1700 - that Senator Obama had refused from the GLBT press. After national gay press of the story and prompting by the major GLBT lobby organizations, Senator Obama gave an interview to The Advocate.

Since becoming the presumptive nominee, in his move to the center, Senator Obama came out after the California decision saying he was against the decision - that marriage is between a man and a woman. So much for the "great unifier" and so much for hopes of DOMA being repealed or for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" being thrown in the garbage.

Then there is an issue that I view as sexism. In Detroit, while engaged in a primary battle with a female opponent, Senator Obama was touring a local factory. Peggy Agar, a local reporter asked the Senator a question about what he would do to aid local auto workers. Obama, while brushing off the question, referred to her as "Sweetie." Would he have referred to a male as Sweetie? To me that was insulting and says a great deal about his view of women as equals.

As to th Senator's move to the center - yes I have an issue. My issue is that he ran as the "liberal" candidate in order to beat Hillary Rodham Clinton. He was the candidate of "change." He has changed. He has betrayed the people who believed he would not play the "politics as usual game." He has also betrayed those who voted for him because of his non-militant stance on the Middle East - specifically his dealings with Iran and Iraq. I believe in one debate he criticized Senator Clinton for her hawkish rush to threaten Iran with force. Now he views the use of nuclear weapons a proper response to the growing tensions with Iran. Who is the man? If he will betray the people who helped him become the presumptive nominee, who will he betray next?

But for me, that issue that turns my stomach and makes my skin crawl, is his vote on FISA. He voted to award the telecom companies immunity for their illegal turning over of phone records, emails, chat and text messages to the US government. He also voted to INCREASE the warrantless spying on US citizens here in our country and to continue the spying on international messages to and from US residents/citizens. Senator Obama was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago School of Law and yet he did not have an issue with legislation that destroys basic constitutional freedoms. (BTW: the law school at the Univ. of Chicago is known for turning out Conservative jurists - in fact Justice Scalia taught there prior to taking his place on the Bench) Based on that vote, I have great difficulty seeing the Senator rolling back any of the signing orders implemented by GWB. I also fear for his take on gun control legislation after his support (antoher differing opinion) of the Supreme Court's decision on the DC gun ownership case.

Then there was the stance "I will never use my children as part of my campaign." Then after an interview with him, his wife AND his children, and the subsequent call of FOUL, the Senator swears it will never happen again. His excuse, they were caught up in the moment and before he knew it his children had been mic'd? I don't believe him in the least. If one is adamant about their children not being interviewed, no one would have been able to approach and mic those children. So, another case of his saying one thing and doing something else when it became politically expedient.

Put these all together and I wonder - who will the Senator throw under the bus when appointing a Justice or federal judges? are the Senator's words of a Bi-partisan government just as empty as GWB's when he ran for President in 2000? What about torture - will he decide waterboarding is not torture? What about human rights\s - will they get thrown under the bus as easily as were the GLBT voters? What about abortion? GLBT adoption? EDNA?

For me - the act of political protest of not casting a vote might not make a splash across the newspapers. It probably won't recieve any more recognition than have any of the over 100 emails and letters I have sent to Senator Obama. It probably will receive less recognition than I have received from his staffers when I have called his offices to voice my concerns or to ask a question regarding a statement made by the Senator. But protest has to start somewhere and for me - being able to look at myself in the mirror and say - I did not fail to sacrifice my morals, I did not violate the ethical code by which I live my life - that is a start.

And while the parties couldn't care less if I vote or not, they might care if thousands of people stood up and said - WE ARE TIRED OF POLITICS AS USUAL AND WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANY LONGER. I firmly believe that we cannot continue to express distrust and apathy towards the system if we are not willing to make a stand.

In the Logo debate Obama said that he felt marriage was not the answer due to the religious nature of the word marriage. There was the entire "marriage/civil unions - it is a matter of semantics" answer.

From the interview with The Advocate:
Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn't that what you're asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

I don't ask them that. Anybody who's been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don't think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It's not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I'm very mindful of Dr. King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail," where he says to the white clergy, "Don't tell me to wait for my freedom."

So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn't be equal because there's a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I'm operating. And I've said this before -- I'm the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn't mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

That's a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That's not a decision for me to make.

Obama's website carried a letter to members of the GLBT population at one time: In it he said: "As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," he wrote. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

Now, Obama's use of language has dramatically shifted. Obama, in an interview with ABC stated: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," shortly after being asked if he opposed same-sex marriage, to which he responded, "Yes." Is this position new? No, it is not. However, the language is. I've looked and I cannot find a single instance of that verbage during the primary race. Language is a large indicator. The Senator is no longer hedging his bets.

And if he is now being very literal in his position of marriage being between a "man and a woman" then I question his commitment to TOTAL repeal of DOMA (he chided Senators Edwards and Clinton during the primary for their advocating of a partial repeal of DOMA). Legally a repeal of DOMA would force states to recognize the gay marriages performed in other states. If he is advocating the position that marriage is between a man and a woman, how will he then be able to advocate a repeal of something that will allow marriages between a man and a woman to be recognized?