From the WSJ. I couldn't agree more.
Hillary Clinton effectively batted back attacks from her Democratic rivals in last night's CNN debate, but laid the seeds for future Republican attacks on her trade positions, which to be charitable appear evasive and tricky. She's an effective debater, but in large
because she so clearly manages to avoid answering specific questions about her views. Asked if she agreed with Ross Perot that the 1993 NAFTA free trade agreement her husband pushed through Congress was a mistake, she immediately commenced evasive maneuvers. "All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts." When pressed, she would only say: "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we hoped it would."
Mrs. Clinton is clearly trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she waffles on NAFTA and calls for a "timeout" on any new trade agreements. But she also doesn't want to explicitly repudiate her husband's free trade record. As the Los Angeles Times reported last month: "Appearing before free-trade supporters, she has praised the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement, which is loathed by many unions. But speaking to a union audience as a presidential candidate, Clinton said NAFTA hurt workers."
One of the biggest problems for Mrs. Clinton is Mrs. Clinton, who effusively praised NAFTA in her best-selling 2003 memoir, writing that "a free trade zone in North America -- the largest free trade zone in the world -- would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens of globalization."
Is it any wonder that former Senator Bill Bradley, a 2000 Democratic presidential candidate, openly questions if Democrats are being given enough information about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like? "We don't know what Hilary would do," he says, "because she hasn't gotten down to the three or four things that she'd do."
I've read scores of commentary in reaction to the JJ speech, this individual posted on msnbc blog, and captures brilliantly why the speech works. It's why it worked for me too.
-I got up at 3:00 am in Brussels to see the JJ dinner... It was worth every lost "Z" to see Obama rock and roll. Four observations... one obvious... three perhaps less so: 1) Obama and his supporters rocked the joint. They with their numbers and enthusiasm... he with a speech which hit exactly the right notes in exactly the right tone for the time and place. He soared, but he didn't scream... he bit, but neatly... drawing just enough blood - from Republican and Democratic contenders - without scaring the horses (the caucus goers) in the convention center corral. 2) He soared in substance, rhetoric and style without separating from the "average" man and woman with undue erudition and too much charm. He was inspiring, in a "down-home" way, AND seriously Presidential... no mean feat for a black man in Iowa. 3) He tightened his rationale for running AND reached out - to Republicans, Independents and, frankly, other Democratic candidates' supporters. 4) He is signaling to those of his supporters who have feared his recently flatter personal affect and poll results (that is, before his just-reported net 10 point New Hampshire "bump") that the DNC Convention speech "magic" is alive and well, and ready to deploy at the proper course and speed for caucus and primary time. Andrew Sullivan (Atlantic cover story) is right: this is the right man and the right time... tactically (for the nomination)... strategically (for the general election) and historically (for the U.S. and the world). Excellent.
Victor Bond, Carlsbad, CA (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:09 AM)
I'm not thrilled with this whole episode as a gay man and Obama supporter. Has it to date effected my support of him? No. As he is clearly the best candidate when it comes to his record of supporting LGBT rights. But it goes deeper than that with me. None of us really know these candidates personally, so for me, it goes to a matter of trust. I trust him more than I trust the others, both because of his record, and who he is as a person, and the type of experiences he has chosen in his life make it much easier for me to take him at his word. Perhaps naive, but it's how I feel. I certainly don't trust Clinton, as it's quite clear that the Clintons have betrayed the LGBT numerous times, with LAWS and the used them to get re-elected (see my blog Link ) I'd love to hear him forcefully speak out about McClurkin's outburt on Sunday, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. He already addressed it with a clear statement that he doesn't agree with or support McClurkin's views. Obama reinforced that statement yesterday on the MTV/my space forum - see video of that question Link Unfortunately his repeating of his views as he did will be perceived by many in the LGBT community to be less impassioned then McClurkin's rant at an Obama event Link I chalk that up to Obama's style, the same style that has brought him critics for not "attacking" Hillary enough. Ironically, there is a Fox news clip that summarizes nicely the whole espisode in a national and political context: Link This is purely conjecture, but I have followed Obama for many years in Chicago, and seen him talk in person on these issues, but if I were to guess what was going on in Obama's head regarding this issue it'd go something like this, "I have fought and always have fought for the LGBT community, and back that up with tangible and principled legislation. My record on that is clear. Yes, symbolism matters, rhetoric matters too, but what i care about are you day to day rights, and for those I'm your man. As for the concert, we made an error in not vetting McClurkin enough, but then were in a bind, and couldn't pull him off without offending others. For that, I'm sorry and ask that you look at my record"
Lastly, although LGBT issues are important to me, it is not the only issue on which I vote. On other equally important matters of the day, I agree with Obama more than I disagree. And trust that even where we disagree, he'll be respectful and upfront about those disagreements.
A great interview explaining his thinking Link My favorite parts: I know you’re in a difficult position here trying to balance these two constituencies -- but by keeping McClurkin on the tour, didn't you essentially choose your Christian constituency over your gay constituency? No, I profoundly disagree with that. This is not a situation where I have backed off my positions one iota. You’re talking to somebody who talked about gay Americans in his convention speech in 2004, who talked about them in his announcement speech for the president of the United States, who talks about gay Americans almost constantly in his stump speeches. If there’s somebody out there who’s been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is. But for your audience, your readership, the one thing that I do want to make sure is included in this article is that on issues from “don’t ask, don’t tell” to DOMA to the gay marriage amendment to the human rights ordinance in Illinois that is the equivalent of what we’ve been attempting to do at the federal level and that I was a chief cosponsor of and then passed -- there has not been a stronger and more consistent advocate on LGBT issues than I have been. also relevant, as he refers to it in the interview, is how he spoke honestly and without parsing words to evangelicals on World Aids Day. Full speech at: Link It's important to thave this at hand now that Hillary is finally releasing her AIDS policy soon http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/clinton-signs-aids-funding-pledge/
When in the past her funding for AIDS/HIV votes have been criticized http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201161.html
Dear Tim,
Thank you for contacting the Human Rights Campaign to share your perspective. There is a lot circulating around the blogsphere regarding HRC, Sen. Obama, and Donnie McClurkin. I just wanted to take the opportunity to address your concerns. Our full official statement can also be viewed at www.hrcbackstory.org.
We expressed disappointment with Sen. Obama’s decision to continue to remain associated with Rev. McClurkin, but our president Joe Solmonese also thanked him for announcing he would be adding an openly gay minister as part of the tour and for his willingness to call on religious leaders to open a dialogue about homophobia.
HRC understands and recognizes Sen. Obama’s support for the GLBT community. However, we felt it was important to release a statement on a developing situation being discussed in the GLBT community. Our statement was in no way questioning Sen. Obama’s support for the GLBT community.
We also call on all of the Presidential campaigns to look within their ranks of supporters and make the same commitment to engage in a dialogue among differing views around issues of equality and fairness for our community. HRC holds all candidates to the same standards.
Please find the full HRC statement below, but if you have additional questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again.
Respectfully,
Dana Campbell
Dear Mr. Solmonese, The recent reaction and statements in regards to Senator Obama's Gospel lineup in South Carolina are exactly the reason why I as a gay white man refuse to support your organization. The hypocrisy involved in only pointing out Senator Obama's tacit approval of those who hold certain religious beliefs not favorable to the LGBT community, is laughable, dishonest and reprehensible. Finally, we have a candidate who has a LONG record of standing up for us, particularly the thorny subject of homophobia in the black community, as well as fighting for LGBT protections and rights in the form of law, and the LGBT community - supposedly represented by you -- throws him under the bus. What about the spokespeople and stand-ins for other candidates who clearly hold similar beliefs? Where's the uniformity of your supposed litmus test? Without pointing out similar publicly known examples surrounding other candidates, you cannot and should not espouse to represent the LGBT community. Without such thoroughness you are nothing but another insider PAC with its own biases, and own political, not civil rights-based, preferences. And where in the statement are you pointing out all that Senator Obama has done for the LGBT community? Sincerely, Tim Winkler Chicago , IL
http://www.week.com/news/local/8815457.html video and Peoria Journal Star: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/31/michelle_obama_in_peoria_for_f.php
I find it still pretty amazing that 400+ people attended this event, 6 months before the primary, of the candidates wife in a city that has elected a Republican Congressman for 70 years!
Hey! Want to help out Barack Obama's campaign? We've got a great opportunity. On Thursday, August 9th the Human Rights Campaign and the LOGO channel are hosting a presidential forum which will explicitly focus on issues of importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Senator Obama is set to appear with the rest of the Democratic Presidential Candidates. If you have the LOGO channel, and are willing to open your home to colleagues, family, and friends, the best way for you to help out is by hosting a forum watching party in your home. If you are interested in hosting a party, or would like to attend a party in your area, please let us know. You can contact us via this e-mail or directly by phone at 312-819-2509. For more information, visit this link http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hphrclogo This presidential forum is an amazing way to highlight Senator Obama’s strong support of the LGBT community. It is only through your efforts that Barack can continue to spread his message of hope to the Country. Thanks so much, and we're looking forward to hearing from you.
Joe Lindsay and Megan Liaboe
It's at an event in Denver, Colorado in June 2007. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfqICFFx20. I think that it is a relatively uncommone viewing amongst followers. While the language she uses is similar to her other speeches, there is something about this speech that is thoroughly convincing, amazingly inspiring, and perfectly authentic. If only every American would watch this.
Did anyone else notice Obamaa's demeanor during the last 2 minutes of his speech at the church service, and for the 5 minutes or so after the speech?(I watched on CNN pipeline both speeches) I have been following Obama for many years, and noticed that he became extremely serious towards the end,a deep, almost sad introspection that appeared to be a precursor to tears. I had never seen this from Obama and i have seen hundreds of his speeches. He was discussing the courage of the marchers, and calling on folks to not waiver, to continue to have courage despite what people say of them. He seemed to stop there for a moment, and deeply realize his own internal doubts about himself, stunned at what he is doing, and wondering if he has what it takes. There was almost an ounce of fear visible. It wreaked of being incredible human and humbling.
