Today the U.S.Supreme Court ruled against the Ohio GOP which attempted to hijack Ohio's election by removing more than 200,000 newly registered voters from the voter rolls.
Hats off to the Ohio Supervisor of Elections who took the case all the way to the Supreme Court
YES WE CAN!
Gordon
This is a link to the complete interview der Spiegel did with Iraqi PB al-Maliki who supports Senator Obama's 16 month plan for the withdrawal of our troops. It will be interesting to see how Bush McCain parse their words.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html
This message from the AFL-CIO Working Families Network is worth copying and sending to your family and friends.
------------------------
Phil Gramm is the national co-chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign. When he called us a nation of “whiners” and said we’re in a “mental recession,” rather than a real recession, McCain tried to head off a media storm by distancing himself from Gramm. But the truth is, the former U.S. senator from Texas has been McCain’s chief economic adviser for many years and is on McCain’s short list for Treasury secretary.
Here’s part of what Gramm told the Washington Times this week:
"You’ve heard of mental depressions; this is a mental recession....We have sort of become a nation of whiners....You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline....We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today.... We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
In February, McCain told the Houston Chronicle: “He’s probably the smartest—not just economist, but politician—there is.” In January, McCain said in an interview with the New York Post, "I would rely on the circle I have developed over many years of people like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Warren Rudman, Pete Peterson and the Concorde Group" (a right-wing think tank).
As soon as Gramm's comments hit the airwaves, blog world and headlines, McCain began backing away from Gramm faster than a falling Dow Jones stock. He claimed Gramm doesn't speak for him and said he didn't agree with the comments. But in an interview with Fox News in April, the candidate himself said he thinks the recession is all in our minds, "A lot of our problems today, as you know are psychological—the confidence, the trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, the ability to keep our home." Along with sharing a penchant for playing shrink to voters worried about the economy, the McCain-Gramm pair shares pretty much the same economic philosophy and love of deregulation, especially in the banking and energy industries. In April, the Washington Post credited Gramm with creating the legislative highway for the subprime lending crisis that is causing foreclosures on the home mortgages of more than 3 million working families:
“Gramm’s aggressive efforts when he was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to deregulate the banking and financial services industry...culiminated in the passage in 1999 of a sweeping financial services law that tore down the Depression-era Glass-Steagall wall separating regulated commercial banks from largely unregulated investment banks....To many liberal economists, Gramm’s efforts set the stage for the current crisis.”
If, heaven forbid, McCain takes the White House, you can bet, because he's said so many times, that the McCain administration's economic policies will be straight of the Gramm playbook. Pretty scary, eh?
Help spread the word by forwarding this message to your family and co-workers. We've got to stop that from happening.
In solidarity,
Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO
I came across this Obama blog entry this morning that pretty much expresses where I am at after Senator Obama's decision to support the FISA bill.
----------------------
Dissent at All Levels
From Bryan K. Long
I think it is fair to say that Senator Obama and most Obama supporters are
opposed to the Republican tactic of silencing dissent by calling it
unpatriotic. We recognize that it is the responsibility of every citizen to
speak out against our Government's actions when we think those actions are
against our nation's best interests. Similarly, it is the responsibility of
every Obama supporter to speak out when the Senator takes positions or
actions which we feel betray the best interests of the nation.
Accountability can not be delayed until after the election; we cannot afford
to sacrifice principles for political expediency and we must demand the same
from Senator Obama. It is true that we must not give up on him -- yesterday
I was ready to, but today with cooler head I know he is still much better
than the alternative. I disagree with Mr. Pitts only when he suggests that
many might just give up without speaking out: the truth is that the 23,000
who signed onto the Get FISA Right group are among the most informed and
ardent of Obama's supporters. Despite their anger, they will vote for him
anyway. But their ardor has been cooled, and they will be watching Senator
Obama with more dubious eyes.
Below is the response I received from Senator Obama regarding his FISA vote. Following that is the ACLU's wonderful action.
Dear Friend,Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.We appreciate hearing from you.Sincerely,Obama for America,---Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act. It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
-------------------------------------------
FROM THE ACLU (which I'm a card carrying member of)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."
In today's legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs in today's case are:
"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world - from Iraq to Argentina. If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the U.S. will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."
The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.
In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.
"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."
In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.
"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."
Attorneys on the lawsuit Amnesty v. McConnell are Jaffer, Melissa Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU. Attorneys on the motion filed with the FISC are Jaffer, Goodman, Tully, as well as Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
More information, including today's complaint, a video discussing the ACLU's legal challenge, plaintiff statements in support of the lawsuit and the FISC motion, is available at: www .aclu.org/faa
ACLU Announces Legal Challenge To Follow President’s Signature
WASHINGTON – Today, in a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy, the Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69 to 28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.
“Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”
The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.
The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications.
“With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill – soon to be law – is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed.”
In advance of the president’s signature, the ACLU announced its plan to challenge the new law in court.
“This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment.”
For more information, go to: www.aclu.org/fisa
Jill G. posted the following item to the Palm Beach Obama Supporters email group.
It's a GREAT piece. Spread the word to women everywhere!
********************************
McCain Opposed Equal Pay Bill for Women, Said They 'Need Education and Training' Instead. McCain skipped a vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would ensure women have the opportunity to recover back pay for discrimination once they discover it. If he had been there to vote, he said he would have voted against it and that women "need education and training" rather than an equal pay bill. The bill addressed a recent Supreme Court decision that said Steelworker Lilly Ledbetter could not recover back pay for 19 years of discrimination at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. because she had not discovered the unequal pay until she retired. The bill would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to allow employees to file charges of pay discrimination within 180 days of the last received paycheck affected by the discrimination. [Source: aflcio.org; H.R. 2831, Vote 110, 4/23/08; Associated Press, 4/28/08]
McCain Voted to Gut the Family and Medical Leave Act. In 1993, before finally voting for the Family and Medical Leave Act, McCain voted to jeopardize leave for millions of workers by gutting the bill. He voted to suspend the Family and Medical Leave Act unless the federal government certified that compliance would not increase business expenses or provide financial assistance to businesses to cover any related costs. [Source: aflcio.org S.Amdt. 16, S. 5, Vote 7, 2/4/93; H.R. 1, Vote 11, 2/4/93]Source for the following information: Planned Parenthood McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies. In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.McCain opposed Title X, the nation's family planning program.In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.McCain opposes comprehensive sex education.In an interview aboard the "Straight Talk Express," McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. He also stated that he supported "the president's policy" on sex education.McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception."Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives.McCain opposed repealing the "global gag rule."In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the "global gag rule," which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade.In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned." In May 2007, he reiterated his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade during an appearance on Meet the Press stating, "My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record."
Lauren, our Palm Beach County Obama campaign leader shared this from a news article. This is exciting news!
************************
"Starting next week, some 400 specially trained Barack Obama campaign "fellows" will fan out across Florida, including the Tampa Bay area, for an intensive six weeks of registering voters, mobilizing volunteers, as well as working to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters into the fold."
John Kennedy and Aaron Deslatte
Capitol View
June 8, 2008
With Barack Obama struggling to win rural voters, women, Hispanics, seniors and union members, some state Democrats rightly worry whether their presidential contender has a chance at all in usually red-state Florida.The Florida Republican Party has already seized on this anxiety, issuing a statement: "No matter how you phrase it . . . the bottom line is this: Barack Obama is way behind in the state of Florida."Maybe. But Florida's traditional Democratic geography also may have been turned upside down by the newly minted presumptive nominee.Say "Florida Democrats" and that usually means Southeast Florida, home of roughly one in three Democrats. Hillary Clinton drew powerful support there in easily winning the state's Jan. 29 presidential primary.But in that primary, Obama carried nine counties in North Florida and came close to winning three others. The common thread: Each has a sizable black population.And come November, Democrats expect overwhelming support from Florida's 1.2 million black voters.Only half of them cast ballots in the 2004 presidential election, party analysts said; the percentage should be far higher this year."For Democrats, Obama has expanded the playing field," said Steve Schale, who directs state House campaigns for Florida Democrats. "He'll draw more young people and more African-American voters. And if he wins Florida, he'll win the White House."Even though he didn't campaign in Florida before the primary, Obama ran relatively well in Miami-Dade and Hillsborough counties. But he fared poorly in the Democratic hotbeds of Broward and Palm Beach -- where the better-known Clinton built two-to-one margins.A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed only 43 percent of Clinton voters would support Obama against Republican John McCain. But party leaders are skeptical of those numbers."I think Democrats are going to vote for Obama in droves," said Jack Shifrel, a marketing consultant and Democratic activist in Broward County. "The majority of Hillary Clinton supporters will come back. And those that don't? We'll make up for them with so many new people that he is bringing into the party."Sinking feeling for Mel, CFOBoth came into office touted as the future of Florida politics.But Republican U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez and Democratic Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink don't exactly look like locks for re-election two years from now, according to a newQuinnipiac University poll.Martinez, handpicked by the Bush White House in 2004, shed himself of the potentially unpopular baggage of serving as the Republican National Chairman earlier this year.But the former Orange County mayor still draws a dismal 40 percent approval mark from Floridians in the survey, compared with 35 percent who disapprove of his performance. His best hope? The remaining 25 percent don't know enough about him to give an opinion.Sink won in 2006 amid fanfare from Florida Democrats, who finally regained a seat on the state Cabinet. She was immediately talked of as a future gubernatorial contender.But only 33 percent approve of Sink, while 25 percent disapprove, according to the survey. The other 42 percent don't know enough about her work in the obscure CFO post to even render an opinion.Polls set to cash in via sportsNeed more evidence of how Florida's sports-crazed culture powers its politics? Consider the state Democratic Party's fundraising schedule for House candidates this year.On Saturday, there was a New York City retreat where they watched the 140th running of the Belmont Stakes.In July, the party's annual golf tournament at Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando is followed a week later by a trip to Yankee Stadium for a Yankees- Baltimore Orioles game.Republicans are ready to pay for play, too, with big-dollar golf and fishing trips scheduled. Last week, Senate President Ken Pruitt and President-designate Jeff Atwater hosted a party fundraiser at the Florida Marlins- Atlanta Braves game at Turner Field.Later this month, Winter Park Rep. Dean Cannon, slated to be a future GOP House speaker, will help host a fundraiser for freshman Republican Rep. Peter Nehr at the Tampa Bay Rays- Houston Astros game at Tropicana Field.But the biggest-ticket fundraisers will coincide with the college football schedule, with Democrats hosting events at the Sept. 6 Florida-Miami game in Gainesville, followed by the Sept. 27 Florida State-Colorado game in Jacksonville and the FSU- Virginia Tech game in Tallahassee on Oct. 25.For good measure, they've lined up a post-election fundraiser for Nov. 23 at the Jacksonville Jaguars- Minnesota Vikings game in Jacksonville.For more insider information and insights on Florida politics, go to Central Florida Political Pulse at OrlandoSentinel.com/politicalpulse. John Kennedy can be reached atjkennedy@orlandosentinel.com. Aaron Deslatte can be reached at adeslatte@orlandosentinel.com. Both also can be reached at 850-222-5564.
Copyright © 2008, Orlando Sentinel
MSNBC and CNN reported on June 6th that Gloria Steinem has endorsed Obama and pledges to work for his election.
This is significant. Hillary supporters who are hurt, angry and threatening to vote for John McCain need to think carefully about what a McCain presidency would mean to them.
There are three very important reasons why women need to support Senator Obama. Even if they forget everything else, these three reasons are why they should vote for Obama:
1. The Supreme Court
2. The Supreme Court
3. The Supreme Court!!!!
Justice John Paul Stevens is 90 and wants to retire. Ruther Bader Ginsberg wants to retire.
A McBush presidency will replace these two justices with right wing neo-cons and Roe V Wade will be overturned therefore making a woman's right to choose again illegal in America.
If you have friends, family members and co-workers who say they will vote for the McBush team for president, please remind them of the the fragile makeup of our Supreme Court and the importance of sending Obama to the White House to keep a woman's right to choose the law of the land.
Please write the DNC and let your opinion be known about Hillary Clinton as a potential VP on the Obama ticket. And let them know that the rules must be obeyed as far as seating the Florida delegation at convention. You can contact the DNC here:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
As a guidepost, here is a copy of what I wrote:
I am highly opposed to Senator Clinton being the vice presidential candidate. Please do not force her on us. There are plenty of qualified candidates for Senator Obama to choose from. As far as the rules regarding the Florida primaries, we need to go by the rules. Seating all of the FL delegates is against the rules. However, it's also important that Florida have representation and a seat at the table at convention. For that reason, I support a 50/50 split. Regards,
I got off work at noon , hurried home to put my Obama tee shirt and cap on. Then Larry and me picked up a neighbor and left West Palm Beach to head down to Sunrise, a western suburb of Fort Lauderdale for the rally at the BankAtlantic Center.
The doors were to open at 2PM and Senator Obama was to arrive at 5PM. We got there at 1:45 and stood in the long line. The doors promptly opened at 2PM just when a typical Florida rainy season deluge hit, but we got in just before the severe downpour occured.
It was an electrifying and well organized event and Senator Obama actually arrived about 10 minutes early. When he was seen walking up to the stage the crowd went nuts, cheering and shouting words of support.
My congressman, Robert Wexler was the MC of the event and said that more than 20,000 people attended.
It was a great event and I'm so glad we went.
In the next few weeks our Obama gatherings will see new members arrive. The new members I'm talking about are the folks on the Hillary Team.
It's important that we remember to go out of our way to be hospitable. Some of them will be ill at ease and some will be hurting inside.
Obama gatherings are warm and friendly anyway, but we all need to be extra attentive to newcomers and go out of our way to introduce ourselves and help make them feel truly welcome. We need to be vigilant about how we frame our references to the Hillary campaign if it comes up in conversation. Be complimentary.
We want to win this election in November and being kind will help us win.
West Palm Beach, FL
Many of us breathed a collective sigh of relief when Senator Obama totally disavowed and ended his relationship with Rev. Wright.
The Obama can get on track with the campaign and energize the message of bring hope for health care for all, stimulation in jobs, ending outsourcing and turning our economy around. Senator Obama's message of our desire to have a better, more efficient and honest administration will once again be heard.
Larry and me watched Rev. Wright on Bill Moyer's Friday night and were impressed. Then on Sunday night we watched his speech to the NAACP and were really moved by him.
And then, WHAM! Yesterday the vitriol and totally outrageous remarks the reverend made about Senator Obama were stunning, mean and totally over the top.
I'm glad that this divorce happened. It needed to.
The debate will be broadcast live from Philadelphia on ABC at 8PM EST.
Please share widely. It's a great interview.
-----------------------------
From THE ADVOCATELink: Obama Talks All Things LGBT with The Advocate | Election 2008 | Advocate.comApril 10, 2008Obama Talks All Things LGBT With The AdvocateIn an exclusive Chicago sit-down with The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld, Democratic front-runner Barack Obama discusses "don't ask, don't tell," the Reverend Wright, and what he would do for LGBT Americans if he becomes president.By Kerry Eleveld
Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama has been weathering a small storm lately in the LGBT community for being too tight-lipped with gay and lesbian news media.
Unlike his rival Hillary Clinton, who's given interviews to Logo and several local papers since appearing on the cover of The Advocate last fall, the Illinois senator has talked only once, to The Advocate, to address the Donnie McClurkin controversy. But last week his campaign offered our magazine an exclusive sit-down in Chicago with the man who may well become the next president of the United States.
To some extent, it symbolizes the brilliance of a protracted primary contest where candidates continually pivot and adjust in order to engage ever more voters. Had the race stopped cold in the snows of New Hampshire, gays and lesbians would have been left with one interview of record for each Democratic candidate in total.But in a wide-ranging interview this Monday, Obama discussed "don't ask, don't tell," the Reverend Wright, and why LGBT folks should lead on marriage equality, not politicians. Some may call the chat a shrewd political move by the Obama camp ahead of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. We call it access.
The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot -- why the silence on gay issues? You’ve done only one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.
Senator Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say "silence" on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got a limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.
But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community; when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.
So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven’t done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on… I promise you, the African-American press says the same thing.
And Spanish-language?
And Spanish-language [outlets] had the same gripe. Just generally, we have generally tried to speak to broader audiences. That’s all that is.
I think the underlying fear of the gay community is that if you get into office, will LGBT folks be last on the priority list?
I guess my point would be that the fact that I’m raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box -- that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I’m not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.
If you were elected, what do you plan to do for the LGBT community -- what can you reasonably get done?
I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated. I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law.
You think it’s transgender-inclusive?
I think that’s going to be tough, and I’ve said this before. I have been clear about my interest in including gender identity in legislation, but I’ve also been honest with the groups that I’ve met with that it is a heavy lift through Congress. We’ve got some Democrats who are willing to vote for a noninclusive bill, but we lose them on an inclusive bill, and we just may not be able to generate the votes. I don’t know. And obviously, my goal would be to get the strongest possible bill -- that’s what I’ll be working for.
The third thing I believe I can get done is in dealing with federal employees, making sure that their benefits, that their ability to transfer health or pension benefits the same way that opposite-sex couples do, is something that I’m interested in making happen and I think can be done with some opposition, some turbulence, but I think we can get that done.
And finally, an area that I’m very interested in is making sure that federal benefits are available to same-sex couples who have a civil union. I think as more states sign civil union bills into law the federal government should be helping to usher in a time when there’s full equality in terms of what that means for federal benefits.
I assume you’re talking about the Defense of Marriage Act.
Absolutely, and I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.
Do you think it’s possible to get full repeal of DOMA? As you know, Senator Clinton is only looking at repealing the plank of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned unions.
I don’t know. But my commitment is to try to make sure that we are moving in the direction of full equality, and I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I’d like to see us lead here too.
Back to “don’t ask, don’t tell” real quick -- you’ve said before you don’t think that’s a heavy lift. Of course, it would be if you had Joint Chiefs who were against repeal. Is that something you’ll look at?
I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy -- ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.
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.
Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.
But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right?
True enough.
As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.
What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?
Well, it starts with my mom, who just always instilled in me a belief that everybody’s of equal worth and a strong sense of empathy -- that you try to see people through their eyes, stand in their shoes. So I think that applies to how I see all people.
Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.
Did you have a chance to ask him about being gay?
I’m sure we did, but as I said, he was really comfortable in his own skin, and the relationship was a strong friendship and I never felt as if I had to get over any mental hurdles to be close to him or to learn from him. He’s probably somebody who had a strong influence.
How old were you then?
Eighteen … 19. It does remind me, though, I remember in my first two years of college that was when I first saw students who were self-identified as gay and lesbian come out and start organizing around gay issues, so that would have been in 1979 and ’80. I think what’s encouraging is just to see how much progress has been made in such a relatively short period of time.
Just draw that thought out a little bit in terms of comparing it to the African-American civil rights movement.
You always want to be careful comparing groups that have been discriminated against because each group’s experiences are different. I think that the transition toward fuller acceptance of the LGBT community has happened without some of the tumult and violence that accompanied the civil rights movement. But we still have a long ways to go, and I think that it also obviously varies geographically. I think in urban communities, you can’t say there’s full equality, but in terms of the LGBT community daily round they’re not as likely to experience certainly the discrimination that they experienced 25 years ago.
Whereas, in the African-American community, you can still see some fairly overt racism. On the other hand, in rural communities, I think attitudes are slower to change.
There’s plenty of homophobia to go around, but you have a unique perspective into the African-American community. Is there a…
I don’t think it’s worse than in the white community. I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities.
Do you think there’s a specific prescriptive, which is not to say that there’s more homophobia in the African-American community. But is there a different answer to…
Well, I think what’s important is to have some of that church leadership speak up and change its attitudes, because I think a lot of its members are taking cues from that leadership.
Do you have any regrets about the South Carolina tour? People there are still sort of mystified that you gave Donnie McClurkin the chance to get up onstage and do this, and he did go on sort of an antigay rant there.
I tell you what -- my campaign is premised on trying to reach as many constituencies as possible and to go into as many places as possible, and sometimes that creates discomfort or turbulence. This goes back to your first question. If you’re segmenting your base into neat categories and constituency groups and you never try to bring them together and you just speak to them individually -- so I keep the African-Americans neatly over here and the church folks neatly over there and the LGBT community neatly over there -- then these kinds of issues don’t arise.
The flip side of it is, you never create the opportunity for people to have a conversation and to lift some of these issues up and to talk about them and to struggle with them, and our campaign is built around the idea that we should all be talking. And that creates some discomfort because people discover, gosh, within the Democratic Party or within Barack Obama’s campaign or within whatever sets of constituencies there are going to be some different points of view that might even be offensive to some folks. That’s not unique to this issue. I mean, ironically, my biggest … the biggest political news surrounding me over the last three weeks has been Reverend Wright, who offended a whole huge constituency with some of his statements but has been very good on gay and lesbian issues. I mean he’s one of the leaders in the African-American community of embracing, speaking out against homophobia, and talking about the importance of AIDS.
And so nobody is going to be perfectly aligned with my views. So what I hope is that people take me for who I am, for what I’ve said, and for what I’ve displayed in terms of my commitment to these issues, but understanding that there’s going to be a range of constituencies that I’m reaching out to and working on issues that we have in common, even though I may differ with them on other issues. And that’s true, also, by the way … well, I think that’s going to be true so long as I’m reaching out beyond the traditional Democratic base.
