Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Gay Clinton backers defect to Obama, eroding another bastion

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS07/80229002 (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS07/80229002)

By Kim Chipman • Bloomberg • February 29, 2008

Hillary Clinton cemented years of goodwill with gays in 2000, when she walked in New York's Pride Parade.

"Having the first lady march was enormously powerful," said Representative Barney Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress. "I've never seen such a strong emotional outpouring."

Now some gay voters, who have been among Clinton's most stalwart supporters and helped her defeat Barack Obama in Democratic presidential primaries earlier this month, may be drifting toward the Illinois senator, according to political activists and campaign officials.

he's got my vote...

QuoteRe: Gay Clinton backers defect to Obama, eroding another bastion

hey, they spelled 'bastard' wrong!


I'll vote for Clinton if necessary, but I don't expect I'll have to.

The idea that 'you would rather be right than be elected' gets old fast.  Hill's ship is sinking.  So, go with a winner.

btw tekla I love your profile pic. Hott.

I find bandwagon jumpers repugnant.
If Clinton was best before she should be best now.
You've got to assume your opinion till they play themselves out.

The whole Obamania, when there's so little substance there
mystifies me. I think its sexism if you ask me.

There's a lot of evidence driving the Obama-mania, Keira.  I mean, just looking at their legislating history alone, yes, Hillary's been doing it longer, but Obama repeatedly has more aggressive bills on the same issues as Hillary, and his co-sponsors are usually stronger Senators.  As for GLBT issues, he's always been more progressive than Hillary has (even if it's only slightly, at times) and that alone is enough to gain my vote.

Looking at the news coverage, I found Sen. Clinton didn't often bring up LGBT -- and it was more often than not only when she was asked a question.  And the only place trans got mentioned was the 'T' in GLBT -- she preferred to use GLBT or 'Gay and Lesbian' when she was in a situation where she had to speak to the issue (i.e., someone else brought it up.  Even when answering a question about ENDA, she could not utter the word 'transgender', 'gender identity/expression' was a rarity, and the usual response was a euphemistic phrase like 'fully inclusive'.   Plus, the Clintons' actions in the past have been to in some way pander to the 'phobes on LGBT issues, usually via 'triangulation' or trying to go for center-of-mass.

Sen. Obama has brought up LGBT equality without prompting in more speeches than has Sen. Clinton.  For me, he has responded more directly to questions about LGBT issues more often than Sen Clinton.  He has also spoken more directly about trans inclusion in civil rights.  Without prompting, and at no small political risk, he chastized the African American christian community for their treatment of 'gays and lesbians' when speaking before the Ebenezer Baptist Church.  His proactiveness in illuminating LGBT issues in his campaign, via statements, letters and ads focusing on those issues has caused Sen. Clinton to reactively present her positions.  I doubt she would have without such prompting.

I would wish for even more from our elected representatives.  It's not just that I'm transsexual and thus am one of those who will bear the brunt of vulnerability to prejudice, discrimination, bigotry and hate.  But it bodes ill for our country if such treatment is condoned against any group.  To me, Sen. Obama has been much more aggressive in promoting equality for all, and protection and support to those in our society who are otherwise unable to protect themselves of self-constituted 'moral' 'majorities.'

Well said, Karen.

I can understand why someone would go for Obama initially,
but that still doesn't explain why people would switch.
Its not like their legislative past has morphed or even
been examined more clearly in the last 6 months.

All I see is a big load of hype and band wagon jumpers.

Obama and Clinton on policy are very very close, even
them would admit it. That Obama is slightly more that way as
senator is not wholly representative of what he can really
do as president since he was representing is constituents
not the nation and he'll have to work with the congress and
the senate.

I'm saying bluntly that in politics, sexism is still very strong.
Just see how many women are in congress, the senate, or the top
committees compared to the population, the discrepency is still
huge.

Its the unspoken bias, the bias that dares not speak its name...

Hi,

   I wasn't going to tell anybody this, but this is why I like Obama better.

     Clinton and Obama are both capable people in my view, however, Obama tips the scale because he speaks what I am thinking and feeling.  I don't expect to agree with him on everything.  Where Obama makes a difference which connects with me is that he is, or at least appears to be, an inclusive person.  He talks about us and we and he openly states he'd have republicans in his cabinet.  This means a lot to me because I am inclusive.  I understand the need to have all people feel they are welcome to make a contribution to solving our problems.
     To be perfectly honest, this speaks directly to my androgyne soul.

    Arianna Huffington wrote an essay that explains what I'm saying better.  Obama is able to use the tools at his disposal to reach people in all of the states and to allow them to contribute in a meaningful way to his campaign and to the process.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/microtrends-vs-macrotrend_b_88962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/microtrends-vs-macrotrend_b_88962.html)

     Mrs. Clinton is very intelligent, but she spends too much time thinking of ways to make her statements neutral in order to appease some people.  And the people she seeks to appease are not necessarily people that I care about like some lobbyists, corporations, and other politicians.  I would trust her to be president, but if I don't have to, then why should I?  Her style does not jibe with what I have yearned to see in a politician since I learned about government as a child.  It does not fit with my personal world view.

     I understand that I am weak in explaining my viewpoint, however, it doesn't mean that I don't understand what is happening in this election.

    I like to see teamwork.    :)


rebis

But, Rebis, that's NOT what I see. I am a canadian, so I think outside the bull->-bleeped-<- sphere of this political cycle, and I see the heavy handed influence of the media. When I actually hear what Obama says and Clinton says and the style in which they both say things, I don't see much of a difference.

Again, I think there is a massive MEDIA bias towards obama (don't know why exactly) and a bias against women in politics in general in the US (and in most countries). Never understood this bias.

What is interpreted one way for a men is interpreted another way if a women does or say it. This has been established in countless studies so I'm not making it up. I'm thinking the US is NOT ready for a women president...

This stuff is a party primary.  As such, its open only to Americans, who are - for the most part - registered members of the Democratic Party.  Worry about your own elections, not ours.

Uh, yeah, I lived in the US 5 years and the US and Canada are their own biggest trading partners and next door neighbors... Nothing to do with me...  ???

I probably follow US politics more than 95% of US voters (I'm not even talking registered voters...), but that has more to do with the US electoral process being broken than anything.

As for worrying about my own elections. When they happen, I worry about them. And, I'm quite informed of current Canadian affairs (and the Canadian Economy is going remarkably well despite the Canadian Dollar's rise impacting exports).

Personally, I'd have loved a woman President, but I just can't abide by her.  She's run a very exclusionary campaign (practically telling voters in all but big blue states that their votes don't count), and she's just too connected to big business and has a long history in Washington that people can use against her.  I was going for Kucinich, and then Edwards, but Obama is an okay third place.

The biggest problem with H. Clinton is that she's made too many enemies.  There are, unfortunately, many people who will who go out and vote for the Republican candidate, whether they like him or not, simply to vote AGAINST Clinton (I've heard this time and time again in conversation).  People don't see Obama as polarizing like they do Clinton.

Keira: on the misogynist front, I do agree with you about one thing: everybody calling her by her first name!!!  So gross.  It reminds me of talk of "Sarkozy and Segolene".  Sure, they might be calling her "Hillary" since there's another Clinton to confuse her with, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

Lia

Quote from: genovais on March 03, 2008, 03:11:21 AM
Personally, I'd have loved a woman President, but I just can't abide by her.  She's run a very exclusionary campaign (practically telling voters in all but big blue states that their votes don't count), and she's just too connected to big business and has a long history in Washington that people can use against her.  I was going for Kucinich, and then Edwards, but Obama is an okay third place.


Lia

My preferences ran like that too.


Hi Keira,


    My feelings have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENDER OF THE CANDIDATES.   I sense that the teamwork and inclusion that Obama encourages in his campaign would carry over into his administration.

    Mrs. Clinton is preferable to most republicans (including McCain), but her views do not represent my views enough for me to prefer her over Obama.  She tends to stop short of a good idea.
    To be honest, Bill Clinton did a good job, but he failed me on many issues that I care about.   I would vote Obama over Bill Clinton.

    I make my own decisions.  The Media means nothing to me.


Peace,

Rebis

Quote from: Keira on March 03, 2008, 12:01:06 AM

Again, I think there is a massive MEDIA bias towards obama (don't know why exactly) and a bias against women in politics in general in the US (and in most countries). Never understood this bias.

What is interpreted one way for a men is interpreted another way if a women does or say it. This has been established in countless studies so I'm not making it up. I'm thinking the US is NOT ready for a women president...

I absolutely agree with you that there is a media bias against women- and especially women with power- in the US.  As an extremely patriarchal country we tend to try to diminish whatever women do in order to maintain the status quo.  Our sexism is a sad fact, however, I don't think that Obama's popularity has much to do with sexism.  This is partially because, as an African-American, he faces a lot of oppression as well.  Though it may seem like we've cleaned up our act as far as race relations go (I don't know if this is indeed true), we haven't progressed very far at all.  The racism in this country, in my opinion, is almost as strong as in the sixties.  The difference is that it's more subversive because it is so subtle that most people don't even know they themselves are racists.

If racism is as strong as the 60's, Obama would stand
no chance of being elected or being the candidate.
I think that its not the case, although as with women,
they have to demonstrate a much higher level of
accomplishment to be respected and there's
lot less margin of errors. Just see what happened
to Fiorina, the CEO of HP.

I think that sexism in politic is even worse because
nobody will admit to it while still not voting for a
women regardless of her strenght.
In the case of a black candidate, if he's strong enough
and enough like the rest of us, his blackness will disapeer
and will not be an issue.  This is a debate that exists
in black circles also, do blacks have to become just
like whites to be accepted?

BTW, Obama for me is a black as I am american indian (I'm 1/4 american indian yet don't consider myself Indian, though if my ancestor had remained on a reserve I could claim that title!). For me, Obama's a man who gets the boy's club treatment VS Clinton.

Anyway, its pointless to argue I suppose because seemingly the media push has displaced for now, all deep analysis of Obama. If I'm Obama, I'd devellopped a thicker skin, cause the republicans won't be as soft as the media or Clinton on him in November.

This is all true.  We'll see what happens, though.  Either way, I'm voting Dem because if they don't win this election I might have to become an expatriot.

I support Obama rather than Hillary. Since she's a woman I'd like to support her, but he has better ideas and is not as nebulous as her on how she stands on things. Just on issues of trans inclusion, it's pretty clear:

Obama:
Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Act (federal anti-hate crimes law) and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. When asked if he supports transgender inclusion, Obama said, "Absolutely. The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them.


Hillary:

Transgender activist Melissa Sklarz asked Sen. Clinton to keep an eye on one of the few federal measures that could help transgender individuals, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

"The way it is written now, it does not include gender identity and gender expression," Sklarz said. "It would mean so much to transgender people, if we could count on some kind of federal protection if ENDA ever gets out of the cave it's been sitting in."

Sen. Clinton noted that trans-inclusion was also a problem in the federal hate-crimes legislation.
"We are aware of that," she said. "Hopefully, the light will come, and we'll see what we can do."

Source: Pam's House Blend http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4178 (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4178)

Canada has elections?  I didn't know.  And I don't care.  That's Canada's problem, we have our own.

DISCLAIMER:  As a life long member of the Democratic Party, a strong member in a strong union, and someone who cares about that party a lot, and America more... 

Hill would be worse than 4 more years of Bush Junior.  She, and her jerk-wad husband, have done more to ruin this nation than anyone before them, and only look good when seen against the backdrop of the past 8 years.  She lies.  She cheats.  She is born into a ruling class that has done anything but rule.  You can't trust what she says any further than you could throw the White House. 

Her whole "I care about working people" --- how do you care about something you have never done, never had to do?

Hill could turn out a base of people to vote against her - not because she is a woman, but because she is Hillary Clinton, that would not only lose the election, but would turn Congress.

Worst idea ever.

You can believe what you believe Tekla, but
your way of putting your point accross will not
tell me that Obama's better.

Just that you hate Clinton with a passion.

And, your dimissive tone is certainly not endearing... Just saying.

Quote from: tekla on March 03, 2008, 01:32:40 AM
This stuff is a party primary.  As such, its open only to Americans, who are - for the most part - registered members of the Democratic Party.  Worry about your own elections, not ours.

No offense hon, but I think you need to take into consideration just how much the rest of the world has riding on this election of yours. For better or worse, in many cases US politics affect people in other countries much more than their own politics do. Your economy makes up 65% of the world's, your culture impresses itself on every other person on the planet, and ask anybody who worked at or near the US Embassy in Nigeria what, ten years ago now, if US foreign policy doesn't affect them, or the people in that Somalian town that got bombed last night.

Like it or not, you guys are in essence voting for a world president, not a US one. Of course we're going to take as much of an active interest as we can.

Quote from: lady amarant on March 04, 2008, 07:32:46 AM
Like it or not, you guys are in essence voting for a world president, not a US one. Of course we're going to take as much of an active interest as we can.

In that case, you guys better pray for Obama.

    Tekla has a point about Mrs. Clinton.  She is highly intelligent and she represents some kind of elitist class.  Her intelligence is what makes her more dangerous than Chimpy McFlightsuit (bush).

just a thought

Quote from: Rebis on March 04, 2008, 08:22:39 AM
In that case, you guys better pray for Obama.

    Tekla has a point about Mrs. Clinton.  She is highly intelligent and she represents some kind of elitist class.  Her intelligence is what makes her more dangerous than Chimpy McFlightsuit (bush).

just a thought

Oh we are my dear (I am anyway), or sending out intention into the universe, or casting spells on a regular basis, or ...

I don't trust dear Mrs. Clinton one iota. She'd be another Margaret Thatcher, or worse.

Quote from: lady amarant on March 04, 2008, 07:32:46 AM
No offense hon, but I think you need to take into consideration just how much the rest of the world has riding on this election of yours. For better or worse, in many cases US politics affect people in other countries much more than their own politics do.

That's the truth! A few years ago, early on in the Bush years, I seriously considered moving to Canada... Friends remarked that if I left, I'd still be subject to US foreign policy...

As much as I'd love to vote for a woman president, Hillary Clinton is too old guard, status quo. My choice is for Obama. He also seems the better choice for trans issues.

Z

Oh its not just her I hate, its the pair, the 'two for one' who, when last in office, sold out just about every democratic value and policy.  NAFTA, GATT, 'ending welefare as we know it', and the endless lying.  He lost Congress, helped Newt and the Repubs do the "Republican Revolution and its Contract on America" junk.  They were not good the first time around.  Any guess they will be any better this time?