You would think that in their desire to win the White House and control two of the three branches of government the Democratic candidates would be making some effort to differentiate themselves from the Republicans and seize the high moral ground and attract disenchanted voters. When literally handed a golden opportunity to stand up for something meaningful, you would think that they would grab it with both hands.
Well, that golden prize was offered to them in Los Angeles on Thursday and they gawked at it like scared children, covered their asses and ran for safety.
All of the Democratic candidates except for Biden and Dodd appeared Thursday night at a forum held by the Human Rights Campaign and the gay cable network Logo. Questions were asked by noted gay activist and musician Melissa Etheridge, two gay journalists and the director of the HRC. The format was much more formal than a debate, with each candidate coming in separately to answer questions from the panel, with no direct interaction with their opponents.
Not surprisingly, among other questions on gay rights issues, they were asked where they stood on gay marriage. This was their chance to make a statement that would set them apart from the crowd, but what we got from the major candidates was hemming and hawing, half-measures and confusion. What we didn't get was any of the front-runners even coming close to endorsing gay marriage, though the two fringe candidates, Kucinich and Gravel who have little to lose by taking risks, did step up in support. The rest more or less endorsed the idea of civil unions, a position so uncontroversial that it's shared by President Bush and most of the major Republican candidates. Bill Richardson continued his plummet from most promising candidate to biggest disappointment by making an unasked for comment about homosexuality being a choice and then retracting it after the forum was over.
Other questions were handled a bit better, including all of the candidates agreeing that it was time to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Hillary Clinton did a reasonable job selling the idea that she had changed her position, despite her uninspiring record which includes a vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. Richardson also turned in an honest but not terribly reassuring defense of his vote for the act on the basis that it was a cynical political tactic to head off an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy D
"Do you think we actually want more of the same old pandering and reliable mediocrity for another four years? Apparently the major Democratic candidates think we do."
The major Republican candidates think we do too. And I wholeheartedly agree with them all on this one point. We do!
We want the same old same old.
"On Tuesday night, Kucinich wowed the crowd of 15,000 union activists in Chicago when he promised to use a little-known provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement to pull the U.S. out of the deal....the applause rose from a rumble to a thunderous roar...
Kucinich did exactly what the AFL-CIO's leadership had hoped he would. He showed the most cautious frontrunners [sic]-- all of whom continue to back NAFTA, albeit with apologies and calls for reform -- just how much enthusiasm there is for a radical shift from the misguided trade policies of Bill Clinton and George Bush.
None of this is meant to suggest that Kucinich will win any official endorsements...Labor organizations tends to go with perceived winners rather than allies who are trailing."
(Quotes at URL)
And that is the point. We actively support the major candidates--always. We support them, just like the AFL-CIO does. The AFL-CIO were presented with a candidate who is a perfect choice to represent their interests, where no major candidate is even a good choice. Individuals presented with their ideal "fringe" candidate do likewise.
There is not likely to be a major candidate who is"...someone of high ideals who has a core set of beliefs and holds to them..." Big money interests assure this. So, where are we likely to get such a candidate? From the fringe.
We don't vote for fringe candidates. We don't even support them in the earliest stages of the campaign.
We must want the same thing we have.
2 - Dave Nalle
So we want corrupt leadership, government which wasted money hand over fist, self-serving hacks who govern based on polls, and no leadership, innovation or vision at all?
Wow, we want a nation which sucks. Who'd have thought it.
And BTW, how do you feel about the right of union members not to have their dues used to support political candidates they don't personally support?
Dave
3 - Nancy
I'm all for anyone being able to withhold the percentage of their dues that goes to support causes they don't agree with.
The more I see of the candidates - of BOTH parties - the more furious & nauseated I'm becoming.
These people are SCUM. Self-serving, lying, fawning, pandering, slick, insincere, waffling, wheedling, unethical, amoral scum. If we'd gone & dredged the prison system itself, I doubt we'd have gotten a worse group of losers; it's just that the candidates haven't been caught & convicted of anything yet. Being professional sneaks & liars, (not to mention connivers & thieves) they're no different from the vermin currently infesting the jails. Just better dressed & groomed. But no better.
God, this is SO depressing. Where the hell is/are the MSM? Why aren't they exposing these assholes - every single one of them? Why aren't more people like us standing up & vomiting forth their outrage & disgust/distrust of these maggots?
Ruvy has it right in another thread: this is what the corporate-conditioned consuming sheeple of American have been brainwashed to want: the status quo, bought & paid for & firmly under the control of the usual band of self-serving tiny plutocracy.
We need a revolution. We need a second coming. Where the hell is God & His putative justice & judgement when He's past due needed? Why doesn't the Cosmic Bastard strike these assholes dead when they stand up there & lie? I've been waiting for Dubya or Cheney to be struck down for ages.
I can only conclude that God is as big a lying, thieving bastard as those who flourish with his help & connivance. He obviously has no interest in justice, or helping those who are oppressed by the powerful.
Of course, Chris will say there is no such being, which would certainly explain to me why Dubya continues to lie & Cheney to rant unobstructed & unpunished, even as the latest crew of wannabes lies their lips off.
What a disgusting state we've come to.
4 - Dave Nalle
But...but...Mitt Romney is so PRETTY - we have to vte for him. He's like a shiny and fascinating disco ball. Positively hypnotic.
Dave
5 - handyguy
Complaining that a national candidate's positions are based on compromises is a little disingenuous. It's not exactly news that most politicians tread gingerly around issues that are both controversial and likely to appeal primarily to a minority special interest group.
As a gay man, maybe I've become blase about these middle-of-the-road positions, because they've been the norm among Democrats for so long. But I'm much more comfortable with any of the Dem candidates on this issue than with any of the GOP candidates. At least Dems won't appoint more Neanderthal judges to push us backward on this and other matters.
And the GOP has an unfortunate record of unpleasant, bigoted rhetoric on most gay issues, including the forked, hypocritical tongues of George Bush and Mitt Romney, among many others.
Gay marriage shouldn't be a federal issue, anyway. It will come, state by state, though it may take decades. Someday we'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
6 - Nancy
Some of us look at it today & wonder what the fuss is about. Handy - let me ask you: what exactly is it that marriage will confer? Is it insurance coverage & inheritance rights? If that's all, why not be satisfied with legal equal status via Civil Unions? Why the insistance of "marriage" per se? As far as I can see, "marriage" is nothing but a religious thing, mostly sponsored by organized
crimereligions, & I doubt you'll ever get any or most of them to loosen up their strictures against gay marriage. Does it really matter that much, as long as you have equal legal rights?7 - handyguy
Hey, I agree with you. But there are some gay folks who see civil unions as 'second class citizenship.' I see their point, but civil unions are more than we had even 5 years ago. Things are moving rather fast.
8 - Lee Richards
It is a rare presidential candidate that has any idea about what to do AFTER they win. Their entire focus and energy is on winning and making the promises and deals to insure victory.
They are almost always either incapable, unprepared, or uninterested in actually governing effectively. Once in office, typically they more often react rather than act.
An individual with strong principles--and a record of standing for them--would be welcome from either party. (I believe--whether he deserved it or not--that was Reagan's persona.)
In presidential politics, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.
9 - Dave Nalle
BTW, I also posted this article (a day after posting it here at BC) over on DailyKos where it's gotten some interesting response - part of my ongoing effort to confuse people about my political allegiances.
Dave
10 - Baronius
Dave, you fail to consider one possibility: that some of the Republican candidates are following their beliefs and providing leadership, just on the opposing side. You're not looking for a principled leader; you're looking for a leader with your principles. It doesn't always work that way. Sometimes the people who stand against you aren't being cynical.
11 - Nancy
Good point, B.
12 - handyguy
Republicans - leadership - feh!
They are obeying the Rovian principle of following their base, even if their personal beliefs differ. This certainly applies to Bush, who could barely hide his prune-faced distaste when he announced his 'support' for an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment he knew would fail.
It also applies to the execrable Mitt Romney, who was pro-gay rights when he needed to get elected governor of MA, and then vociferously anti- as soon as he knew that what he was running for next was not reelection but the White House.
These people are not leading anyone anywhere a sane [or thoughtful] person would want to go.
13 - gonzo marx
#9 sez - "part of my ongoing effort to confuse people about my political allegiances."
no one who pays attention could possibly be confused, but it's interesting to see you openly admit deliberate deception
it's a start, i guess..
Excelsior?
14 - Dave Nalle
This certainly applies to Bush, who could barely hide his prune-faced distaste when he announced his 'support' for an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment he knew would fail.
Which is worse, knowing that Bush personally supports civil unions and yet compromises as little as he can get away with on the issues in order to keep his support, or knowing that Obama and Clinton and Edwards personally hate the idea of gay marriage but are willing to reluctantly endorse civil unions in order to get votes?
Dave
15 - Dave Nalle
no one who pays attention could possibly be confused, but it's interesting to see you openly admit deliberate deception
Yes, but no one pays attention, with you leading the pack. So it's necessary to jump on every opportunity to try to break down peoples assumptions. I don't expect to bring you around, but others might get a clue.
Dave
16 - handyguy
...knowing that Obama and Clinton and Edwards personally hate the idea of gay marriage but are willing to reluctantly endorse civil unions...
You may know this, or think you know this, but I think you're way off base. Most Democratic candidates, including the leading 3, seem perfectly happy, not reluctant, to endorse civil unions, and many if not most would probably endorse marriage too if it didn't mean the tedium and embarrassment of backtracking and being smeared by GOP attack dogs.
The fact that they appeared at the forum last night at all belies any 'reluctance.' They were announcing their friendliness to this constituent group in a quite open, visible way. Not so sure about Biden and Dodd, but maybe they were just busy, ha.
I feel certain Fox will cover the forum heavily and unfavorably just for its very existence, and use it as evidence that the Dems are out of touch with 'mainstream, normal' America. Ugh.
17 - Dr Dreadful
Oy, Davey boy... are you trying to be outrageous? Did you not get to rebel as a teenager or something?
To accuse gonzo, of all people, of being the prime offender when it comes to not paying attention.
It's like accusing Trent Lott's brain cell of synapsing.
As for confusing people about your political orientation, a better ploy would have been to post this article on World Net Daily and one of your Bush-apologist pieces on Kos. The blue half of the country is already convinced you're a screaming neocon. Now you need to get the red half thinking you're a raving pinko commie.
Then the fun truly begins...
18 - Jesse
Democrats are caught in a bit of a quagmire at the moment... our political and philosophical loyalties are obviously with the left, but we can't find a viable candidate who has real guts and integrity on this side. We might recognize that there are some very authentic candidates on the right, but they're "sincere" about things we don't agree with.
If you're like me, you're not interested in "settling" for someone who shares your values, but only champions them half-ass'dly. Unfortunately, not enough people are like that... too many are willing to settle for a "viable" candidate who happens to be politically flaccid. That's the third part of this trilemma.
There's three factors: are they principled? Are they right about their principles? And are they politically viable? Apparently I can't have all three, but I'll take the first two. Kucinich gets my support.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, but when Kucinich loses the primaries, who will meet more than one of your criteria then?
20 - Dave Nalle
The blue half of the country is already convinced you're a screaming neocon. Now you need to get the red half thinking you're a raving pinko commie.
Yes, that sounds good. The ideologically hidebound deserve to be equally wrong on both sides of the divide.
Dave
21 - Arch Conservative
"As for confusing people about your political orientation, a better ploy would have been to post this article on World Net Daily and one of your Bush-apologist pieces on Kos. The blue half of the country is already convinced you're a screaming neocon. Now you need to get the red half thinking you're a raving pinko commie."
I guess to the moonbats anyone who doesn't swallow their leftist propaganda whole is a Bush apologist, raving neocon, with an eight figure bank account, playing cards with cheney rove et al every Tuesday night in a top secret underground bunker at necon HQ in a top secret location, feasting on the carcasses of the middle class joe's that they hunted down earlier that night roasting on a spit over an open fire and washing it all down with a nice tall glass of crude oil.
If I had a nickel for every time some moonbat attributed to me support for Bush that I never expressed simply because I called him out on his uber left moonbat bullshit the number of nickels I'd have would be greater than the number of women Bill Clinton has sexually harassed.
Now that's a lot of fucking nickels folks.
22 - gonzo marx
#15 sez - "I don't expect to bring you around, but others might get a clue."
hopefully they get a clue of just how deep the confidence game goes with some people in the political arena...
"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" - Kaiser Sose
Excelsior?
23 - Lumpy
What troubles me is the people who will point fingers at everyone else and shout 'devil' while never noticing the forked tail swishing behind themselves.
24 - gonzo marx
it's the brimstone aftershave that gives it all away...
Excelsior?
25 - PollM
To at least 96 per cent of readers -- the heterosexuals -- the idea that we can be persuaded to change something as fundamental as sexual orientation seems ridiculous. So it is to homosexuals, who make up the remaining 4 per cent and who are often told that their "deviant" behavior is a lifestyle choice. Make it known