Gay Panelists: Clinton Won

[wyldwolf]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the winner of last night's gay-rights presidential forum - even though she seemed "tortured" over gay marriage, a panel assembled by The Post said.

Some in the group of eight gay New Yorkers - undecided voters who gathered in the Union Square-area apartment of furniture-gallery owner Evan Lobel to watch the debate over a Chinese-food dinner - said they even saw, for the first time, a hint of her husband's vaunted political charm.

"You saw a little bit of Bill in her," said Michael Evans, 26, who lives in the West Village and said he's not a Hillary fan. "It was like, Wow! She's empathetic. She's not totally evil."

Members of the Post panel at various points laughed, rolled their eyes, and listened attentively as the major candidates dodged the issue of gay marriage.

But all said they were impressed with Clinton's performance - noting the moment she turned to the crowd to single out a gay member of the military whom she knows. "She's really brilliant at the way she works the audience," said Jo-Ann Shain, of Flatbush, Brooklyn, who watched with partner Mary Jo Kennedy.

The two were plaintiffs in the historic gay-marriage lawsuit in the Big Apple in 2004.

Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards both tanked with the panel, with several saying the Illinois senator seemed "green" and the former North Carolina lawmaker seemed "inauthentic."

Michelangelo Signorile, a Sirius radio show host, rapped the field for refusing to back gay marriage, saying, "The Republicans are going to say for same-sex marriage anyway."

When New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said homosexuality is "a choice," some members of the panel gasped.

"He's circling the drain," Kennedy said. The two biggest laughs of the night came when rocker Melissa Etheridge asked Edwards if he was comfortable being in a gay crowd, and when long-shot candidate Mike Gravel thanked "the gays" for tuning in.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102007/news/nationalnews/post_panelists_pick_hillary_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm

[avrdream]

1. "The gays"

I can't stop laughing.

Not a shock that Hillary did well. She has always had a certain appeal to the gay crowd (insider knowledge here).

[Wiccan Warrior]

107. I think it is so grand really that

being gay I have so many out there that speak for me at times it's great I don't have to say a thing =):sarcasm:

[Ian David]

2. I tuned in late, and only caught the tail end of Richardson, and the Hillary's interview.

Over the last two debates, I have come to realize:

1) I have been right all along that Joe Biden is the Democratic Arlen Specter, and a giant festering cesspool of evil.

2) I have underestimated Dennis Kucinich.

3) I have overestimated Barak Obama.

4) Bill Richardson is the new Mike Dukakis-- flat, boring, uninteresting, well-intentioned but not very well-informed.

5) My opinions of Hillary Clinton and Mike Gravel have remained static.

[JTFrog]

3. I bet Mellissa

disagrees with that.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Her amazing exchange with Hillary below was not mentioned on The Today Show in their debate recap

Hillary Clinton Faces Tough Questions At HRC Forum

Hillary Clinton, whose husband has a less than stellar reputation in many precincts of the gay community, was peppered with tough questions at tonight's gay rights forum in Los Angeles.

Rocker Melissa Etheridge, a moderator, told Clinton that gays felt "thrown under the bus" by her husband's administration in the 1990s. By this she meant the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gays in the military and President Clinton's support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"All the great promises that were made to us were broken," Etheridge said. "It is many years later now. Are we going to be left behind like we were before?"

"I don't see it the way you describe. but I respect your feelings about it," Clinton responded. The administration, the president, the vice president "did the best they could."

Etheridge: "Why not be a leader now?"

Clinton: "I think I am the leader now. But to not only talk about laws as important as they are, but to really try to change attitudes to persuade people that they should be more open, more respectful. If I were sitting where you were sitting with all you have gone through ... I'm sure I would feel the same way."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/hillary_clinton_faces_tough_qu_1.php

*******************************

Also, the online VisibleVote08/LogoOnline poll tells a different story:

Who's your candidate?

35% Barack Obama

24% Dennis Kucinich

21% Hillary Clinton

9% Mike Gravel

8% John Edwards

4% Bill Richardson

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. As usual, Kucinich's positions are discounted

not because they go against the position of the GLBT community, but because he's "unelectable". Doesn't that imply that the fellows who rated the candidates think that gay marriage is a "break" issue when it comes to candidates? As long as Kucinich is marginalized, his issues are marginalized too, and the other candidates have no incentive to move towards a more liberal view of things, and why should they? They see no threat in staying where they are. It's for this reason that I wish people would stop automatically dismissing Kucinich.

[xultar]

5. Richardson seemed so off. I was shocked. I love Richardson but he needs to

go for a cabinet spot.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. This post should come with a 'consumer advisory'.

It's the POST. That's the New York *POST*. Murdoch's 'flagship' paper. Wherein he introduced the editorial-as-news concept to an unsuspecting American public.

Rupert loves Hillary and Hillary loves Rupert.

[karynnj]

12. Not to mention it was a group of EIGHT people

even if randomly chosen - which they do not seem to have been - the sample size is way too small. Also, one saying that "she's not totally evil." is pretty faint praise!

[eweaver155]

8. Hillary does not win. You are talking about people from NY of course they are going to support

Hillary. Melissa Has a different story though. She felt she was lied to and she called Hillary on the carpet for it. She could not really look Melissa in the face. Keep trying to spin. Everyone on nation wide TV saw how Melissa felt about the Clintons and their false promises.

[Meldread]

9. Geeze. Rupert shills for Hillary... again?

I'm perfectly serious in this. Why make a thread with a New York Post article that puts Hillary in a good light, when it is common knowledge that Rupert Murdoch owns the paper, and Hillary is under fire for having his support? If anything, if you are her supporter, you'd want to marginalize that. However, I guess not. As it stands it proves what everyone has been saying, Rupert Murdoch is shilling for Hillary.

It makes her blame-Al-Gore-dodge at YearlyKos (I believe that's where it took place) regarding decentralizing the media stand out even more. When asked if she'd work toward media decentralization, Hillary responds with they should ask Al Gore. This ties directly into her support from Murdoch, and by making this thread you have effectively given ammunition to it.

[wyldwolf]

11. Did Rupert have a byline on that article?

Was he in the panel being interviewed?

Tell me NOW if everything Murchoch touches should be discounted or just things having to do with Hillary.

[Meldread]

17. Everything Murdoch touches should be discounted.

Everyone knows that he uses his media outlets to spin things the way he wants. It isn't even a secret anymore, and they don't even bother to hide it. Read the article. It's as if Hillary's own campaign wrote it and sent it out to be published. It makes her look bad because it shows that she is willing to engage in media propaganda.

So yes, everything Murdoch touches should be discounted or at the very least viewed with high suspicion. Everything you read from one of his outlets is designed to spin things the way he wants, which is more often than not; contrary to what is good for the Democratic Party, good for liberals and good for America.

[jefferson_dem]

19. He chose the panel participants.

How do you not see an inherent problem with that?

... unless you trust Murdoch to produce "fair and balanced" reporting.

[wyldwolf]

23. link?

[jefferson_dem]

25. Did you not read the first sentence in the NY POST story you linked to?

August 10, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the winner of last night's gay-rights presidential forum - even though she seemed "tortured" over gay marriage, a panel assembled by The Post said.

[wyldwolf]

27. yep, and it doesn't say Murdoch chose the panel participants... so... link or slink

[jefferson_dem]

28. Now you're just being silly. We all know the NY POST is a Murdoch-run pub...

and the panel was assembled by the NY POST.

... 1 --> 2 --> 3.

[wyldwolf]

33. so? Where does it say he chose the participants?

[Clintonista2]

94. Nowhere. Lying is the only way to discredit Clinton, though.

[Smarmie Doofus]

40. If you wrote for a Murdoch paper...

wouldn't you be the slightest bit , ummmm....... *self-conscious* about reporting information that reflected negatively on a candidate that Murdoch supported?

OF COURSE every thing he touches -- journalistically speaking--- should be discounted ! Where ya been? He does advocacy 'journalism' and packages it as 'news'.

It's just what he DOES. This is a revelation? See the video "Outfoxed".... then get back to me.

[MadHound]

10. Of course Hillary won! In Murdoch land, Hillary is a goddess, apparently for no good reason.

Meanwhile here in reality the largest majority of the LGBT community now realizes that Clinton and the others aren't going to do more than token gestures for them if they win. The only exceptions, the ones who truly suppor the LGBT community is Kucinich and Gravel.

It is a sad sign when Hillary supporters are having to resort to News Corps crap to validate their candidate.

[ronnykmarshall]

26. Tell that to the croud at the Abbey in West Hollywood

The place was packed and people loved her.

[durrrty libby]

30. Did you write about your experience yet? I'm looking forward to it.

[ronnykmarshall]

32. I will later

it was simply magic.

[Ethelk2044]

31. Correct me if I am wrong. That was a fundraiser for her you attended

Of course they would like her.

[ronnykmarshall]

34. There were a lot of people that were undecided.

I spoke to several people that haven't made up their minds.

But of course you'll spin your magic on that.

PLUS at a seperate event that was put on by the Human Rights Commission the majority of the people interviewed supported Hillary.

But of course that doesn't matter either as you'll soon spin.

[Smarmie Doofus]

43. So the answer is "Yes, it was a Clinton fundraiser"? nt

[ronnykmarshall]

45. Actually it a was a chili cook off.

Damn Hillary can whip up pot o' chili!

[ronnykmarshall]

91. self delete ...

dupe

[bvar22]

56. Thanks. ROFL!

The people at Hillary's $250/person fundraiser liked her.
:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

78. Maybe you should get your facts right.

The general admission was $50 a person. Take a look at the picture you posted. The "VIP" tickets were $1000. And may I add that the general admission area was PACKED!

Stop spreading lies to try and make some lame ass point.

I'll be happy to read your retraction to your lie.

[bvar22]

95. Gee, I didn't see anything about a "Chili Cook Off"

on the sales brochure for the Hillary FUNDRAISER you attended.

Are you still trying to insist that this event was NOT a "Hillary Fundraiser"? :shrug:
:

[ronnykmarshall]

96. Wow still not admitting you were WRONG!

Nice try.

Maybe if you can't understand it ... but the chili cook off was a joke. Yeah it was a fund raiser ... and NOT for $250 a head as you LIED about.

Can't seem to admit you're wrong can you?

Funny how hate causes people to lie and not admit it.

[durrrty libby]

13. The panel was very astute in their observations. One line pops

"Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards both tanked with the panel, with several saying the Illinois senator seemed "green" and the former North Carolina lawmaker seemed "inauthentic.""



Very often, these are the impressions they leave , regardless of the setting.

[Ethelk2044]

15. To the contrary. Obama and Edwards did well. HIllary could not even

look Melissa in the eyes. She looked away and to the audience. They could see she was not comfortable. Also, Melissa called her on her broken promises. She did not even come close to winning.

[durrrty libby]

22. Obama made people cringe with his phrase "scourge of AIDS"

From their site


"OH PLEASE, OBAMA…
Obama’s discussion was somewhat “flat” and seemed a little perfunctory to me. He said all the right things up until the very end.

His reference in his closing “speech” to the “scourge of AIDS” made me twitch just a little.
Having been raised a Catholic, the word “scourge” has deep-seated meaning that invokes horrible images. A scourge, by definition, is a punishment!

Considering that Mr. Obama is an otherwise intelligent, well-spoken and seemingly compassionate individual, I’m concerned that the use of this word indicates some subliminal issue with the subject of AIDS. To me, a very wrong choice of words."


He has sooooo much to learn.

[jefferson_dem]

29. Well...Hillary reminds some of Chimpy.

HILLARY’S HEDGING
Hillary … “I’m your girl” but can you step back and be president? Xena should remain a warrior, but not Queen! Her experience and strong voice has everyone’s attention. Her failure to apologize outright for her war stance reminds me of Bush. NO, NO… Don’t brush the same-sex issue onto the states … They didn’t push civil rights onto the states. Nothing will happen until the federal policies demand equality for all. Using states rights are too convenient way of back peddling! Take a federal position!
BossKitty

NO FRIEND OF HILL
I was very upset and even a little hurt when said that the reason she is against gay marriage is a “personal issue” . That’s nice for her, she can feel anyway she wants about gay marriage, but it shouldn’t be about how she feels. It’s about being denied our right to marriage. She should put the people in this country and their rights above her own personal beliefs.

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/your-two-cents-what-you-didnt-like/#more-218

[Cameron27]

73. I don't remember Clinton saying it was a personal issue,

I'll have to check the transcript if they have one.

[Bongo Prophet]

46. So, you think Obama meant AIDS was a whip? Or something that causes mass suffering?

scourge |skərj|
noun
1 historical a whip used as an instrument of punishment.
2 a person or thing that causes great trouble or suffering : the scourge of mass unemployment.

[AntiFascist]

60. I think it shows incredible insight....

Not all punishment is deserved, and anyone around in the 80s should remember how the religious right was more than willing to use AIDS as a form of punishment. Reagan's unwillingness to devote extra funds to fighting the disease sealed the deal.

[Bongo Prophet]

101. I took it just to mean something that has caused much pain, and not a punishment.

Maybe I am wrong on that. I do not claim to know what he was thinking.
My only point in post 46 was that "scourge" did NOT NECESSARILY mean a punishment, as Diirrrrrrrty claimed.

I remember well Reagan's cruel and deliberate ignoring of the issue, as well as the Xtian assholes claim that it was Gawd's punishment.
I lost some of my best friends then, and it is painful to this day.

But to your point, Antifascist, are you saying Obama's use of scourge was a way to reframe that historical reference in a more positive and insightful way?
I didn't see it that way, but you may be right. I do know that ALL dems are MUCH better on the issue, and don't see Obama's use of the word in any negative way at all. If Hillary of any other candidate had said it, I would feel exactly the same way. No harm, no foul. :hi:

[durrrty libby]

98. The criticism was from people attending the debate, not me.

And it had to do with a religious connotation not a simple definition.

It was surmised so simply that a 5th grader could understand.

Poor you living that way

[Bongo Prophet]

100. I only was playing with your words. Your words.

I quote you: "A scourge, by definition, is a punishment!"

By definition, you said.

Now you say it is just religious connotation. Okay, shifty.

I was just having a bit of fun, but if you want to be an ass about it, well that is your choice durrrrrrty libby.

Just shilling for your girl. As always.
I will not hold it against Hillary that some of her supporters are such jerks. That is true of many supporters. I am still open and listening to them all, personally.

"Poor you living that way" and "5th grader" and so on. You insult people on threads all the time. Why is that?

[durrrty libby]

106. Not my words. Not my words. Not my words

I clearly said it was from their site and used quotation marks


"shifty"? "jerks" Poor you...hypocritical much?

[Bongo Prophet]

108. You are right, my apologies for missing the quotes.

I made a mistake on that, and admit that.

[durrrty libby]

109. Thank You

[Tellurian]

20. And let's not forget, Ethridge openly supports Kucinich..

[jefferson_dem]

21. ...Just like Rupert Murdoch openly supports Hillary...

You point?

[Tellurian]

24. Was Murdock on the panel? I must have missed him...

:hi:

[BigDDem]

36. Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary for president?

Wow! I did not know that, please provide a link, thanks!

[jefferson_dem]

38. Well, here's one juicy link. There are others if you need them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

[BigDDem]

39. Yes, please.

Please send one where it confirms that Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary for president.

Thanks!

[wyldwolf]

42. How does that link prove Murdoch supports Clinton for president?

[lojasmo]

55. Murdoch hosts fundraiser for Clinton:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

[Smarmie Doofus]

74. That one just proves that he loves her; this one proves...

... that he supports her for *president*:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102007/news/nationalnews/post_panelists_pick_hillary_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm

[creeksneakers2]

81. I read it. It says:

"They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

[MagickMuffin]

102. I won't claim he supports her or not, but here's his donation to her campaign

Murdoch, K R New York , NY 10036

News Corporation/Chairman

CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D) President

HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE INC. $2,300 primary 06/05/07

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php

on edit: added link

[Bongo Prophet]

104. That's strange that it was to the Exploratory committee, in June of this year...

I mean, in June she was definitely "in to win" as the saying goes.

Maybe he likes her a little? sometimes I suspect the RWers fascination with Clintons is a mix of envy and respect, but they just can't deal with that.
Hate, they can relate to.

Rupert has been known to give to both sides, so I don't think it's a deal closer, really. I just find it interesting - he supports the ghouliani too, right?
Hedging bets? Mindfucking dems, just playing with our heads?
When you are as rich as he is, it could be a joke for all I know....

[BigDDem]

37. No kidding!

Could she have possibly fawned over him any more?

P.S. "Rock star" Melissa, it's not going to happen honey.

[ronnykmarshall]

97. Don't dis Melissa.

[jefferson_dem]

14. A group of panelists picked by the NY POST?

'nuff said.

Seriously, what's next -- a focus group put together by NewMax?

EDIT: I do not automatically reject any information published in the NY POST, but when the panel is bought and paid for by Murdoch's boys...we should all say "what. eva" to any and all of their conclusions.

[Ethelk2044]

16. Good Point

[BluegrassDem]

18. Lesbians feel a connection with Hillary

No wonder they declared her the winner.

[ripple]

51. This lesbian doesn't. n/t

[Totally Committed]

35. The NY Post is saying Hillary won a GAY debate? Really?

Now, there's a source! (Doesn't Murdoch own the Post?)

I doubt most "gays" feel that way.


TC

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Mmmm, Kool-Aid...

"It was like, Wow! She's empathetic. She's not totally evil."

He then forced his gorged eyeballs back into their sparkling sockets and marched off with a banner in his hand.

Perhaps the conservatives are inherently right in their misanthropy: the human race isn't worth saving.

[Bongo Prophet]

49. Sometimes even faint praise is a step in the right direction...

"Empathetic and not totally evil" -- I think if people get to the point they can judge on issues, and get past some prejudice, it is a sign of progress. I mean, if someone already thought those things, and one appearance changed those perceptions, then the "would never vote for her" numbers would change. This could bode well for her if she is indeed the nominee in the general, and therefore for Dems downticket. The more perception she has of being "EVIL" - especially in the bizarro world of Murdochia - the better for us all, IMO.

Next on the list, maybe "trustworthy" ?

Hope that makes sense. I want ALL of our potential nominees come out of this process looking better at the end of it. We have SANITY already locked up. :hi:

[beastieboy]

44. If Hillary said the sky was blue, the haters would find fault with it.

It's sad that no matter who praises her, they are discredited.

[ronnykmarshall]

The is NOT blue!

And it's all Hillary's FAULT!!

:silly:

[Cameron27]

47. I thought Clinton and Obama did about the same

during the debate, until someone posted this:

“However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.”

http://pride.barackobama.com (HRC questionnaire)

So both Edwards and Obama have personal issues that directly affect their decision not to support gay marriage, and Richardson thinks homosexuality is a choice. When someone boldly states that they have personal problems on a matter of the civil rights, it's offensive to me as a liberal Democrat. Hillary made it clear that she has NO problems with this, and it's a question of getting this past the Republicans.

I have no trouble believing that the folks attending this forum picked Clinton as the winner. It had to be her or Kucinich, and they may have been put off with some of his mildly new-age answers.

[cboy4]

48. Well, I'm almost postive Hillary was the only candidate to

speak at the Human Rights Campaign annual board meeting.

Ironic that she and HRC have the same initials!

[Alexander]

50. Using Rupert Murdoch to prop up Hillary? We know where your loyalties lie.

And they sure aren't with the Democratic Party.

[marmar]

52. Kucinich CLEARLY was the best last night in the forum.....

How can it be called a debate? In a debate, don't the candidates debate with each other? This was a more intimate format where the candidates were responding to panelists questions but not interacting with each other.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. HRC: "Not totally evil"

Such a ringing endorsement.

[JI7]

54. local ABC News in Los Angeles reported the same thing

but i'm not sure how reliable it is. every single person they showed said they liked Hillary the best. they didn't show anyone who said they liked any of the other candidates. i find it hard to believe that there was not one single person there that supported someone other than Hillary.

[AntiFascist]

77. Who knew...Disney supports Hillary n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

79. FOX 11 in LA

Reported mostly the Obama supporters. So does FOX support Obama?

[AntiFascist]

82. Considering who the audience for Fox News is....

exposing a candidate who supports the gay community probably isn't a demonstration of support. Now, why didn't they focus on Hillary?

[ronnykmarshall]

83. Get it Linda Blair

DAMN!! That's some good spin!

Pat yourself on the back sweetie!

[AntiFascist]

84. You really need a 12 step program...

[ronnykmarshall]

85. Saffie!

Someone has stolen from me!

[AntiFascist]

86. Please mum, I'm trying to study!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3442355#3442406

[ronnykmarshall]

87. Remember the one with Saffie leaves home?

And Eddie can't open the can of soup and goes to Saffie's school for help?

God I love that show.

"It called colonic irrigation, Sweetie it nothing to be sniffed it!"

[AntiFascist]

88. No, and I thought I knew all the episodes...

I'll have to watch them all again, I love the show too!

I remember when Saffie's water broke.

:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

89. Poor Patsy's dress!

[mitchtv]

57. We had Ham and swiss on dark rye,

Kucinich won hands down ,Two new voters for DK and one for Gravel
"Hillary is for gay rights as long as it helps her" was one comment I heard, another: " Edwards is just too slick", "Richardson must be drunk" "Obama? I don't trust him". Hillary seemed to have more supporters, I am changing from Edwards to DK.
We also had homemade potato salad and homemeade chocolate raspberry layer cake

[ronnykmarshall]

80. mmmmm tatter salad!!!!

[MethuenProgressive]

58. "Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards both tanked"

Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards both tanked with the panel, with several saying the Illinois senator seemed "green" and the former North Carolina lawmaker seemed "inauthentic."

So... these panel members are MSM puppets too? :eyes:

[AntiFascist]

59. The HRC shills gave her a standing ovation....

but I think Obama really won, and he had much more powerful arguments.

[William769]

62. Did he get a standing ovation?

[AntiFascist]

64. No, he's probably not raising enough money for HRC n/t

[William769]

66. The excuses that pop up here are really hilarious. Thanks!

:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

65. Yes he did

But the previous poster needs some more bullshit to attack HRC and the HRC.

[AntiFascist]

71. I'm not attacking the HRC (Human Rights Campaign)...

they need to get the funding for their huge headquarters bldg from somewhere.

[ronnykmarshall]

63. Shills?

Uh they gave Obama a standing ovation as well.

Good god. People are sure grasping for straws.

[AntiFascist]

70. If they did then I didn't notice it....

I think it's great that at least one presidential candidate embraces HRC, I'm just pointing out where the support comes from. She certainly doesn't have the most progressive stance on gay marriage.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-ducks-answer-on-whether-homosexualty-is-immoral/

[William769]

61. This Homosexual thought she won also!

[ronnykmarshall]

67. So does this one too.

But of course we don't matter around here.

[William769]

68. We don't have to around here.

We matter where it counts. The voting Booth!

[ronnykmarshall]

69. VAVOOM!

[AntiFascist]

72. So you think you're more of a homosexual than I am?!

:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

75. Um ... no.

What ever floats your boat.

[William769]

76. Retract the claws. NT

[mitchtv]

90. I've been gay since 1944

Kucinich won, followed by Gravel. Sorry to inform

[AntiFascist]

92. Kucinich would have won....

had it not been for him admitting that he might have to run 5 times before he has a real chance at the presidency! He also needs a new tailor, that shirt he wore at the AFL-CIO debate made him look like a....erm, little person.

Gravel was really impressive, who is that guy? (rhetorical)

[mitchtv]

93. he looked..wel almost cute, and

very at ease. Gravel was a doll

[pingzing58]

99. I'll say it again. These candidates don't understand that if you base the argument for gay rights

on "religious morality" the Right Wingnuts will win. It's not about morality (I'm not saying that the gay life is immoral; I'm saying that in the eyes of most fundamentalist and under-educated or unenlightened Americans these understand the gay life as immoral) it's about the right of every american to be treated equally under the law and to have the same protections in the persuit of life, liberty and happiness. We live in a society with a secular government. This separation is needed to prevent the civil authorities' past atrocities against women or those who believed differently from ever happening again including today's concern for the GLBTT community.

[illinoisprogressive]

103. Actually I was reading some gay blogs about this and they loved Kucinich best

[Bongo Prophet]

105. I agree that equal rights is the best way to approach this.

good point, pingzing58 --
Equal rights under the law is the basic principle that even RWers should have to grapple with. :hi:

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

110. It's the New York Post! Owned by Rupert Murdoch!

Seriously, I am sick of people posting stuff from right wing papers. Find a paper which is not owned by a blatant propagandist and we'll talk.