Support NeoGAF

[Deus Ex Machina]

PHOTOS: BARACK OBAMA meets with Dem governors and comes to Jacksonville, FL for a fundraiser

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., boards his campaign plane in Jacksonville, Fla., Friday, June 20, 2008.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talks with the media in front of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Fla., Friday, June 20, 2008.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., walks to the podium to talk with the media in front of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Fla., Friday, June 20, 2008.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., waves after talking with the media in front of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Fla., Friday, June 20, 2008.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shakes hands with people after talking with the media in front of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Fla., Friday, June 20, 2008.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

And earlier, at the Democratic governors' meeting...

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., listens during a meeting of Democratic Governors, Friday, June 20, 2008, at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago.
(AP Photo/Alex Bran

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., center, listens during a meeting of Democratic Governors, Friday, June 20,2008, at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago. From left are, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano., Obama, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 

[Amir0x]

Good photos as always. I wish someone would do a McCain version

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Breaking: MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php

By Greg Sargent - June 20, 2008, 12:05PM

MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.

MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.

By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Istead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.

To put this in perspective, MoveOn's 527 raised $20 million for the general election in 2004 -- and at least half of that came from donations over $5,000.

"This is an affirmation that we, like Senator Obama, believe that this election can be won by ordinary Americans giving small donations," MoveOn spokesperson Ilyse Hogue told me.

MoveOn's 527 has been dormant since 2005, but the group had held open the option of starting it up it for the 2008 election -- until Obama's success with small donors showed that huge sums could be raised without it.

The move could also make it tougher politically for John McCain and the GOP to benefit from 527s, which can raise money in unlimited sums, on his side. While he has generally disapproved of such activity, he recently said that he couldn't control negative ads by such groups.

"The hope is that Republicans will match this, so that the voices of ordinary Americans can drive this election," Hogue said.

This is unilateral disarmament.

Pro-McCain 527s are going to spend 250 million dollars to trash Obama, and what is our side doing? Closing their 527s?

...

 

[Zonar]

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., center, listens during a meeting of Democratic Governors, Friday, June 20,2008, at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago. From left are, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano., Obama, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Sans immunity, which is one of the key sticking points. I still wish he objected more holistically, but if immunity gets cut then it will actually resemble a compromise. Right now it's a giant gift to Bush.

I think it'll never pass in the Senate, if Obama can provide the leadership to help stop the FISA bill by introducing amendments after amendments of removing the immunity off the HR bill, and in conference, it can be declared unresolvable, and we'll get the one we'll need once Obama and the majority (and possibly filibuster-proof) of Democrats in power.

Once the people of the U.S. realize that the Republican experiment is long over, and corporations begin to lose the right to play around with the people (corporate personhood).

 

[GhaleonEB]

I was going to post this earlier, but it pissed me off so much a hailstorm of profanity would have ensured, and I try to avoid that while posting from work.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/0011/53572/204/538824

An aide to Iowa's governor said Thursday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain ignored the governor's request to cancel a campaign visit amid a massive flood recovery effort in the state.

McCain toured flood-damaged sites in Iowa on Thursday, including the town of Columbus Junction in the southeast. [...]

Patrick Dillon, Gov. Chet Culver's chief of staff, said the governor was concerned that McCain's trip would divert local law enforcement from the flood recovery effort to provide security for McCain.

"As a courtesy — and as we did for Senator Obama — we privately made an effort to make sure that Senator McCain knew that state and local resources were still being deployed to support the flood fight and that now may not be the best time for a campaign trip," Dillon said in a statement.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama canceled a scheduled visit to eastern Iowa last week at the request of state officials.

Stupid fucking self-serving, photo-op loving opportunistic son of a bitch.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

There really needs to be something in the thing that states if you go around this you will be punished. Because the president went around it and broke the law and NOTHING happened. What's to stop someone in the future from breaking the law again?

The original FISA says that it's the exclusive law for intelligence eavesdropping.

Then the Bush Administration decided that the Consitution lets him eavesdrop outside of FISA.

Congress could have impeached Bush and/or allowed the FISA lawsuits to continue.

Instead, impeachment is "off the table" (Nancy Pelosi) and Congress is stopping the lawsuits.

But Congress wrote in the bill-again-that FISA is the the exclusive law for intelligence eavesdropping.

Of course, there is no reason why a future president should be deterred by the phrase "exclusive" appearing in a bill twice instead of once.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

FISA statement:



Supports the compromise, but will work to remove the immunity. Same as ever, but people will still bitch about it.

According to MSNBC if he doesn't want it to pass, he's gotta filibuster. The Senate can't just say "we'll pass it EXCEPT for the retroactive immunity." If that's what they decide, then it would have to go back to the House.

So I'm not sure exactly what Obama meant when he said he would fight the immunity part in the Senate.

 

[GhaleonEB]

According to MSNBC if he doesn't want it to pass, he's gotta filibuster. The Senate can't just say "we'll pass it EXCEPT for the retroactive immunity." If that's what they decide, then it would have to go back to the House.

So I'm not sure exactly what Obama meant when he said he would fight the immunity part in the Senate.

Reid wants it taken out as well. If they do, that difference would have to go to the committee between the House and Senate that works out differences between bills in the two quorums. It's not uncommon.

But it won't happen. Attempts to strip immunity from the bill failed in the previous debates on FISA in the Senate.

 

[Mandark]

He means that he'll support an amendment, I assume.


I do think that as the presumptive nominee he could have let the Democratic leadership know that he didn't want any sort of immunity in the bill and scuttled it that way.

 

[Zaptruder]

I was going to post this earlier, but it pissed me off so much a hailstorm of profanity would have ensured, and I try to avoid that while posting from work.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/0011/53572/204/538824



Stupid fucking self-serving, photo-op loving opportunistic son of a bitch.

It's incredible the gulf of difference between the two candidates, if only you simply stop and pay a little attention.

It really is a case of light versus dark, good versus evil, the differences are that dramatic.

I mean... Americans don't want to couch in such terms... they want to think that their democratic system isn't so broken that they would legitimately make a choice between good and evil and find it a difficult situation. No... not been able to make the right choice resoundingly with that sort of obvious choice in place would simply make them outright stupid. They fool themselves with this sort of thinking... but no. It really is that simple.

This time around, there shouldn't be any sort of debate... you have one guy, constantly doing the right thing, or as right as he can be given the circumstances and difficulties... and pulling it off spectacularly... representative of how a person in a utopian democracy should behave

and you have one guy that's haggard, old representing everything that's screwed up about democracy on the otherside; doesn't focus on issues, simply wants to president for the sake of the title; doesn't really have any critical positions other than wanting to carry on current policies (cruise control/or simply a maintainer of a (bad) status quo)... only been motivated to do some things right by his opponent... otherwise there's no way...

I shouldn't be able to fathom how this is even supposed to be a choice... and yet, the pragmatist in me understands exactly why this is a choice for the people of America. It's the political game... not all its participants are about the issues, about the direction of the country, nor the merit of the job. It's a game of manipulation, numbers, power, strategy, etc, etc... everything a democracy shouldn't be.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Breaking: MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php


This is unilateral disarmament.

Pro-McCain 527s are going to spend 250 million dollars to trash Obama, and what is our side doing? Closing their 527s?

...

This is the kind of thing I worry a lot about.

God damnit.

 

[Mandark]

That's a pretty insane post, Zap.

 

[Sleeker]

:lol
I thought I was seeing things for a second there.
You sneaky bugger

 

[Zaptruder]

That's a pretty insane post, Zap.

It may be hyperbolic... but fuck, you know I'm right man.

You know what this election cycle feels reminscent of?

Blu-ray vs HD-DVD.

I mean with that, you had one side that on paper and in facts so heavily outweighed the otherside.

The otherside doesn't give up, doesn't admit defeat... and a lot of the MSM reports it as an ongoing war between the two. They omit facts and spin things in order to keep it more even than the facts of the matter represent... but it's plainly obvious to anyone observant of the reality of the situation what exactly is going down. But they simply can't finish off the issue until the companies that are involved in the issue signal the end by raising a white flag.

The massive smear tactics that the repubs will likely pull will be akin to Toshiba buying off Paramount... a lot of noise, ultimately little effect other than to annoy the participants of the process.

This election cycle, is going to get to the point where Obama's support will hit a wall; with McCain been propped up by people that support him unconditionally (for been republican), or have an irrational hate of Obama...

 

[Hootie]

:lol
I thought I was seeing things for a second there.
You sneaky bugger

Holy shit! I really didn't notice the seal changing :lol

I'm an idiot.

 

[Amir0x]

It may be hyperbolic... but fuck, you know I'm right man.

At that level of hyperbole, you're setting yourself up for a haaaard fall if Obama doesn't even come close to living up to this. And I love hyperbole!

I believe Obama is what he preaches, and that he is giving Washington a chance at substantive change, but I know he's imperfect and just as likely to fail.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Holy shit! I really didn't notice the seal changing :lol

I'm an idiot.

I just went and previewed both pics side by side before I noticed. I didn't realize how close the logos were to each other. :lol

 

[Dan]

I don't understand why Democrats seem hellbent on unduly capitulating on FISA and telco immunity, especially the retarded need to do so before the recess. Someone needs to step up and filibuster the hell out of this. Dodd?

 

[Zaptruder]

At that level of hyperbole, you're setting yourself up for a haaaard fall if Obama doesn't even come close to living up to this. And I love hyperbole!

I believe Obama is what he preaches, and that he is giving Washington a chance at substantive change, but I know he's imperfect and just as likely to fail.

It's a gamble. If he succeeds, the pay off is sooooo sweet. If he fails, tears for years!

Heaven or Hell mode. It's the only way to play bitches!

 

[Amir0x]

It's a gamble. If he succeeds, the pay off is sooooo sweet. If he fails, tears for years!

Heaven or Hell mode. It's the only way to play bitches!

Hehehe. Honestly we've only scratched the surface of this campaign... Obama and McCain are both going to make serious mistakes for the next bunch of months. I have had a few problems with Obama so far, and a bunch with McCain... but obviously I think Obama is still running the best campaign.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

its catch 22... democrats come back strong with an amazing candidate, are set to kick ass. yet the ball passes to them when things are bad (economy, oil, ect) and poised to get 10x worse and the incumbent party gets the blame. so the ball could bounce back as soon as 2013. and obama=carter II in history.

 

[speculawyer]

That cat must be stoned.

 

[Amir0x]

its catch 22... democrats come back strong with an amazing candidate, are set to kick ass. yet the ball passes to them when things are bad (economy, oil, ect) and poised to get 10x worse and the incumbent party gets the blame. so the ball could bounce back as soon as 2013. and obama=carter II in history.

Heh. Yeah, Obama faces a monumental uphill battle. History will judge him based on, at least, if he can begin to kickstart things in the right direction.

 

[knitoe]

Have no idea why people think Obama some sort of Messiah. McCain and him are just politicians whom will say and do calculated things to get elected. Both will be influence by some old powers in the capital. For Obama, he'll probably have a Democrat Congress which means he'll run the party's agenda. If you like what the Democrat Party offers, that's what you should expect, but don't believe in "Bringing the country together," "Changing the environment" and so on BS that all Politician says.

Many people here are going to be disappointed because they expect way too much from Obama presidency. This thread would be good to be saved and re-visit in 3-4 years.

 

[Gaborn]

Have no idea why people think Obama some sort of Messiah. McCain and him are just politicians whom will say and do calculated things to get elected. Both will be influence by some old powers in the capital. For Obama, he'll probably have a Democrat Congress which means he'll run with the party's agenda. If you like what the Democrat Party offers, that's what you should expect, but don't believe in "Bringing the country together," "Changing the environment" and so on BS that all Politician says.

Many people here are going to be disappointed because they expect way too much from Obama presidency. This thread would be good to be saved and re-visit in 3-4 years.

I'm pretty sure for the last several pages some members were making it very clear that Obama is NOT seen as the savior president and may do more harm than good even if unintentionally.

At the same time, it's understandable that more liberal GAF members would see a more liberal yet seemingly electable candidate like Obama with his charisma and presence as a savior, particularly coming off a 2 term neoconservative president.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

I have had a few problems with Obama so far

I can only think of two things that were questionable to me:

-The "Annie Oakley, shame on you" comment to Hillary; uncalled for
-NAFTA pandering

Other than him not sharing my positions on gay marriage and negotiating with Hamas, he is a perfect candidate for me. And even then, I actually prefer that he doesn't share those positions because he could never be President if he did.

Did I miss anything? What complaints do Obama supporters have of Obama? He is so close to perfect that I am more compelled to talk about his imperfections rather than what makes him so great.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I have a question.

If Obama were to support the legalization of marijuana... how much would that hurt him...

Personally everyone I talk to would be in support of legalization... especially republicans it seems. So I think it would be a good progressive move on Obama's part to do it.

 

[Odrion]

What is going on with Obama and NAFTA now?

 

[Door2Dawn]

I can only think of two things that were questionable to me:

-The "Annie Oakley, shame on you" comment to Hillary; uncalled for
-NAFTA pandering

Other than him not sharing my positions on gay marriage and negotiating with Hamas, he is a perfect candidate for me. And even then, I actually prefer that he doesn't share those positions because he could never be President if he did.

Did I miss anything? What complaints do Obama supporters have of Obama? He is so close to perfect that I am more compelled to talk about his imperfections rather than what makes him so great.

Stop watching fox news,obama never said he would talk with Hamas.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I hate when people talk about Obama supporters as though we are a bunch of kids who are gonna cry when he doesn't start printing money on trees.

The only thing that he would really disappoint me on would be if he didn't change foreign policy the way he has talked about doing. I want to see a president talk to iran, I want to see one that will try and settle differences with China and Russia, I want a president that will make the common people in the Middle East respect us (Emphasis : Common people. Not the small percentage of radicals that conservatives pee their pants over every day)....Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc etc etc. The Bush policy of "Fuck y'all" is the worst thing about his presidency to me. Oh and, of course the War in Iraq must end. But thats a damn near given...

I could care less about him "changing Washington"...I don't care about Washington morality when my idea's are the ones getting pushed through. To partially quote Paul Mooney, to get things done, "I will sell your baby, then go home and sleep like one".....:lol

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm pretty sure for the last several pages some members were making it very clear that Obama is NOT seen as the savior president and may do more harm than good even if unintentionally.

At the same time, it's understandable that more liberal GAF members would see a more liberal yet seemingly electable candidate like Obama with his charisma and presence as a savior, particularly coming off a 2 term neoconservative president.

Some members, i.e. yourself, talking about the harm that Obama's approach to gay marriage would do harm... compared to McCain's policy of toting on the status quo?

Never miss a beat Gaborn. Endless amusment for all as you do a T-1000 style death dance of cognitive dissonance.

As far as Obama's influenced by the democrat agenda goes... I think he's displayed the sort of strength of character and adherence to his own values that makes it clear that he'll be setting the agenda for the party and not the other way around... and he's already started to do that with the way he approaches party funding.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Stop watching fox news,obama never said he would talk with Hamas.

I know. I WANT to negotiate with Hamas. And for further clarification, I want full gay marriage, not civil unions. I like how he meets me halfway though unlike McCain.

 

[Azih]

Have no idea why people think Obama some sort of Messiah

It's almost completely because this is the first time that a Presidential candidate actually falls in the same area of the 2D political quizzes as most of GAF.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I have a question.

If Obama were to support the legalization of marijuana... how much would that hurt him...

Personally everyone I talk to would be in support of legalization... especially republicans it seems. So I think it would be a good progressive move on Obama's part to do it.

It's one of those weird issues.......I think that a sum majority of the country would support it....but, when it came to public perception and the media...it's like a third rail issue.

Or maybe most people don't want it? I dunno, I feel so disconnected from most of the "values" of "Middle America"...I talk about lowering the drinking age and people act like I'm a lunatic.

 

[Gaborn]

Some members, i.e. yourself, talking about the harm that Obama's approach to gay marriage would do harm... compared to McCain's policy of toting on the status quo?

Never miss a beat Gaborn. Endless amusment for all as you do a T-1000 style death dance of cognitive dissonance.

As far as Obama's influenced by the democrat agenda goes... I think he's displayed the sort of strength of character and adherence to his own values that makes it clear that he'll be setting the agenda for the party and not the other way around... and he's already started to do that with the way he approaches party funding.

It's not cognitive dissonance though, it's a real concern of many in the gay community (I wasn't exactly the only one voicing it either) that if we get civil unions today the impetus for getting gay marriage is entirely and completely gone for a good while longer. Frankly I'd RATHER we have nothing much for a little bit longer to better explain the case for marriage EQUALITY so that can actually happen reasonably soon.

Well, that, and a lot of gays don't like Obama pandering by having an ex-gay gospel singer on stage as his Emcee at an event either.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I can only think of two things that were questionable to me:

-The "Annie Oakley, shame on you" comment to Hillary; uncalled for

To be fair, she had just got done with her condescending ass "Shame on you Barack, shame on you"....I felt that his comment was a direct response to that.

Also.....that was one of his funniest campaign jabs imo : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzQxFtM9cfk

"Like she's out in the duck blind every sunday....she's packin a six shooter".......:lol :lol :lol

 

[avatar299]

I have a question.

If Obama were to support the legalization of marijuana... how much would that hurt him...

Personally everyone I talk to would be in support of legalization... especially republicans it seems. So I think it would be a good progressive move on Obama's part to do it.

It would hurt him.

Though if he became president, I think he could lessen the laws easily.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's not cognitive dissonance though, it's a real concern of many in the gay community (I wasn't exactly the only one voicing it either) that if we get civil unions today the impetus for getting gay marriage is entirely and completely gone for a good while longer. Frankly I'd RATHER we have nothing much for a little bit longer to better explain the case for marriage EQUALITY so that can actually happen reasonably soon.

Well, that, and a lot of gays don't like Obama pandering by having an ex-gay gospel singer on stage as his Emcee at an event either.

Is it a majority though?

Is there really a majority of gays that would prefer suffering through McCain for 4-8 years over Obama's compromise solution?

I suspect that the percentage of gays that agree with that, would be stunningly close to the percentage of gays that are republican by default.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I think the small donors are getting tapped out.. Gas prices are tapping out moderate/middle income donors too.

I sure hope you're wrong.

He's going to need all the money he can get. Every cent is going to matter. The republican machine is powerful as all hell. Even with their party in the gutter, they are going to have a helluva lot of fight left.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

To be fair, she had just got done with her condescending ass "Shame on you Barack, shame on you"....I felt that his comment was a direct response to that.

Also.....that was one of his funniest campaign jabs imo : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzQxFtM9cfk

"Like she's out in the duck blind every sunday....she's packin a six shooter".......:lol :lol :lol

The fact that she said it earlier made it even worse. When he used the exact same phrase, he stooped to her level. It was a diversion from his message, and the attack was too personal for me to find it heartening. He hasn't done a personal attack other than that, thankfully, and has stuck with actual political issues in his criticisms.

 

[Gaborn]

Is it a majority though?

Is there really a majority of gays that would prefer suffering through McCain for 4-8 years over Obama's compromise solution?

I suspect that the percentage of gays that agree with that, would be stunningly close to the percentage of gays that are republican by default.

I don't know if it's a majority of the gay community, but I think a majority of the gay community would probably prefer marriage rights to civil union rights, obviously there are a number of gays that agree with a more gradual approach or at least would accept it. I just see it as ultimately counterproductive and I'm certainly not alone in that view. As I said, it's a concern in the gay community, that doesn't mean everyone in the gay community agrees it it, it just means that there are some that do feel that way.

Afterall, I was responding to the poster that said Obama-poli-gaf seems to view him as a savior or Messiah figure. Whereas, clearly, there are a number, particularly in gayming age that have this concern with him despite some posters encouraging us to "shut up" about it as Door2Dawn put it.

 

[Zaptruder]

I don't know if it's a majority of the gay community, but I think a majority of the gay community would probably prefer marriage rights to civil union rights, obviously there are a number of gays that agree with a more gradual approach or at least would accept it. I just see it as ultimately counterproductive and I'm certainly not alone in that view. As I said, it's a concern in the gay community, that doesn't mean everyone in the gay community agrees it it, it just means that there are some that do feel that way.

Afterall, I was responding to the poster that said Obama-poli-gaf seems to view him as a savior or Messiah figure. Whereas, clearly, there are a number, particularly in gayming age that have this concern with him despite some posters encouraging us to "shut up" about it as Door2Dawn put it.

You certainly don't have to shut up about it, I can understand how it's a pressing concern for you if you are homosexual (and even an issue of interest if you aren't)... but to demonize Obama over the one issue when he's proposing a nearly there solution, over a not at all solution is disingenious, and loaded with agenda.

You know you're not attacking him solely because of his position on homosexual marriage, so please don't act so indignant about it and pretend (at this moment) that it's the only critical issue.

 

[Door2Dawn]

I wasn't telling anyone to "shut up" about anything. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Kitschkraft]

The fact that she said it earlier made it even worse. When he used the exact same phrase, he stooped to her level. It was a diversion from his message, and the attack was too personal for me to find it heartening. He hasn't done a personal attack other than that, thankfully, and has stuck with actual political issues in his criticisms.

I personally feel that a bull needs two horns, one for offense, and one for defense.I think that the line between critiques on issues and character is thinner then commonly appears, but that's probably not the opinion amongst a lot of Obama supporters.

Far as him going to her level, I understand why you feel that way, you're probably right even. Me personally, I just want to see anything at least semi-progressive in the whitehouse for a change, I think that the country was shifted dramatically to the right under Reagan, and I want it to shift back. Clinton didn't accomplish it, and I hope we have a candidate here who will.

 

[Gaborn]

You certainly don't have to shut up about it, I can understand how it's a pressing concern for you if you are homosexual (and even an issue of interest if you aren't)... but to demonize Obama over the one issue when he's proposing a nearly there solution, over a not at all solution is disingenious, and loaded with agenda.

You know you're not attacking him solely because of his position on homosexual marriage, so please don't act so indignant about it and pretend (at this moment) that it's the only critical issue.

That's true, and I don't just criticize him on gay marriage, though that's probably the one with the most immediate effect to me especially since I view civil unions as a threat to marriage equality.

It is however one that is easy to understand, important to many other people on this forum (I could criticize him on economic policy and do, I think we should be cutting taxes and spending, not raising taxes to pay for more spending) and ultimately I think worth discussing because it's a very human issue on what can become a very sterile campaign, whatever policies you make on marriage affect the couples involved in a personal way. it speaks to human dignity, to claims of equality, to the basic human need to be treated as an equal in a personal way. Whatever disagreements I have with Obama over taxes, over spending, over drug legalization and decriminalization (I still say he flip flopped the wrong way) and over many other issues I'm probably forgetting I just think this one is more personal for me, that's why I tend to talk about it more.

Incidentally, I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm pretending otherwise, I've been consistent that I disagree with Obama on a variety of issues and have repeatedly said I wouldn't vote for him either way (though I did mention once if I was inclined to do so for whatever reason his position on gay marriage and support for second class civil unions would very nearly be a deal breaker).

Edit: and as I said, a "nearly there" solution is absolute crap. Would you support a state renaming all marriages involving African Americans to civil unions? Why? it's just a word, right? But unfortunately if we get it I don't see full equality coming anytime soon thereafter.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Just as me throwing in my own, unsolicited two cents, this whole issue of gay marriage to me is a baffling concern in the world of politics. I've already stated this, but I'm part of the newer, more tolerant generation that isn't influenced by religious rhetoric and generations-old biases, and as such, it's a complete non-issue to me. Really, I see protests going on after the California ruling, and I think to myself "are we seriously worked up about this?" Here we are, in the midst of a struggling economy, an unpopular war, a potential energy crisis, the potential to begin a war with Iran, and are watching an historic election unfold. And amidst all of this, outrage over gays getting married is actually getting front and center attention? Really? Repeating an earlier statement I made, my official stance can be boiled down to stating that I can think of no rational reasons at all for why two people of the same gender getting married affects me at all, and for that reason alone I fail to see why I should be against it.

Nevertheless, not everybody shares this viewpoint. Without having sat down for drinks at the bar with Senator Obama, it's impossible to know what his actual viewpoints are concerning the homosexual community. Regardless of that, though, I see his stance on civil unions as political maneuvering to attempt to not draw a line in the sand, since we've already established that, for reasons unknown to me, this is a hot button issue. He's secretly for gay marriage? Well, if he comes out in favor of it, social conservatives, who love to throw around nonsense about marriage being the most sacred of ceremonies since the beginning of time that was clearly only meant for a man and a woman to engage in, will find this to be a greater offense than if he really was a secret terrorist. Meanwhile, if he's secretly against it, then that wouldn't fly with his image, or that of most left-leaning individuals for that matter. The progressive candidate of change can't be seen as homophobic. So, in the world of politics, where he must justify this to both sides, it's a perfect middle ground.

So, rather than give him praise or criticism based on my own conjecture, I guess all we can do is discuss the actual stance he's taken. Mind you, I'm from the outside looking in, so I don't know how important my views are. However, I'd have to say that this is a fairly progressive step. It might not be everything you wanted, but it's far, far better than nothing. But since I'm not in your shoes, I suppose it's not my place to tell you how you should think. After all, I could propose to my girlfriend tonight and be married tomorrow. "You should take the deal" advice from me could certainly be seen as patronizing, I know, coming from someone who doesn't understand, but I can still respect an opposing viewpoint born from conviction whether I share it or not.

 

[Zaptruder]

That's true, and I don't just criticize him on gay marriage, though that's probably the one with the most immediate effect to me especially since I view civil unions as a threat to marriage equality.

It is however one that is easy to understand, important to many other people on this forum (I could criticize him on economic policy and do, I think we should be cutting taxes and spending, not raising taxes to pay for more spending) and ultimately I think worth discussing because it's a very human issue on what can become a very sterile campaign, whatever policies you make on marriage affect the couples involved in a personal way. it speaks to human dignity, to claims of equality, to the basic human need to be treated as an equal in a personal way. Whatever disagreements I have with Obama over taxes, over spending, over drug legalization and decriminalization (I still say he flip flopped the wrong way) and over many other issues I'm probably forgetting I just think this one is more personal for me, that's why I tend to talk about it more.

Incidentally, I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm pretending otherwise, I've been consistent that I disagree with Obama on a variety of issues and have repeatedly said I wouldn't vote for him either way (though I did mention once if I was inclined to do so for whatever reason his position on gay marriage and support for second class civil unions would very nearly be a deal breaker).

For people that have read your posts for a while now, that's certainly true. But the tone to the recent posts have emphasized that latter position... and the reality is it's simply not representative of your own overall position, much less gay voters in general.

 

[Gaborn]

For people that have read your posts for a while now, that's certainly true. But the tone to the recent posts have emphasized that latter position... and the reality is it's simply not representative of your own overall position, much less gay voters in general.

Honestly, I think I've been completely consistently libertarian in my objections to Obama. I'm known very publicly as a libertarian and not an Obama supporter, I think you're looking too hard into this. And I still think you're dismissing the concern that civil unions today may mean gay marriage in 30 or 40 years rather than 10 or so too quickly. As I said, I'm not sure many gay voters WILL be less inclined to support Obama over it, I just think they SHOULD because it's rational to oppose second class relationships.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Honestly, I think I've been completely consistently libertarian in my objections to Obama. I'm known very publicly as a libertarian and not an Obama supporter, I think you're looking too hard into this. And I still think you're dismissing the concern that civil unions today may mean gay marriage in 30 or 40 years rather than 10 or so too quickly. As I said, I'm not sure many gay voters WILL be less inclined to support Obama over it, I just think they SHOULD because it's rational to oppose second class relationships.

I'm going to respond from a different angle. I'm slightly perplexed as to where your numbers are coming from. I completely understand that you think civil unions passing now can delay the movement for marriage, but I'm not quite sure why you believe that a rejection of civil unions now will lead to marriage in that timeframe.

First of all, this isn't a strike negotiation. It's not like a rejection of Obama will be interpreted by all as a rejection of this poor compromise. I don't think that there will be news stories discussing the election day results of a McCain victory with an analysis about how this was due to the gay community standing strong and preferring marriage or nothing. Second of all, with McCain at the helm, explain to me how this might not just lead to it being 10 years before even civil unions are back on the table?