josh (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} crazyveggie) wrote,@ 2007-08-15 10:32:00 |
|
candidate by candidate...how did they do.
here is my response to the HRC presidential forum which you can see for yourself at:
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/200
Barak Hussien Obama- his name alone is seemingly enough to shake up the male white establishment, but when you take a look at his positions on the issues, it's obvious why he is able to have a name like barak hussien obama and still be a front-runner in this race. up to this point, my reservations on obama have been 1. his support of free-trade 2. his support of mandating private health insurance as opposed to universal medicare 3. he hasn't said he would pull out iraq and 4. his support the politcally safe term civil unions as opposed to marriage citing religious beliefs.
his responses to the HRC's questions were very scripted to the point that i was annoyed. he spoke of instating a "version of civil unions that would include full marriage benefits". he also went on to say it should be up to individual denominations whether to recognize gay unions as marriages. which i completely agree with except: our country has no problem with hetero civil marriages called marriages and to not instate the same institution by the same name for queer civil marriages is not only discriminatory, but a giant waste of time on the part of our government to draft up separate legislation for civil unions...
overall i feel like obama knows what he needs to say in order to get the GLBT vote, but i don't think if elected he'll do anything for our community.
Jonathan Edwards- has tried to appear to care about the working class, but also support free trade and prides himself as being the first fool in the race to call mandating private health insurance a universal health care plan.
During the forum he started to go off on tangent about how he visited the LA gay and lesbian center and how inspired and saddened he was by the youth some of whom are homeless because they came out to their families. he said it wasn't fair to use religious faith as an excuse to not provide civil rights for GLBT folks. he described his feeling towards these issues as a journey that he's still on and he doesn't know where he'll end up. but when asked where he thinks he'll end up, he totally fucked up any credibility he gained through that speech he said that his position hasn't changed. it was funny because you could see the frustration on the panelist's faces (especially mellissa etheridge).
Dennis Kucinich- this is the candidate i support because as i have pointed out before, his positions closely resemble mine ie. peace, choice, single payer not-for-profit healthcare, fair as opposed to free-trade etc.
during the forum he was asked if there was area in which he and the HRC disagreed and he couldn't think of anything. and it only get better from there. this forum only solidified his platform of peace and civil reform.
Mike Gravel- i feel like i would probably support him if Dennis Kucinich weren't running. i don't know how i feel about his healthcare vouchers plan which would be determined on projected need...my gut says it's silly because i don't see a way to fairly distribute these vouchers. but in either case, i appreciated his candor in the forum.
he rejects that the word marriage is a religious term because it predates religion. he questioned why he any GLBT would support any candidate other than one who supports full equality including marriage. i like gravel, he's a premium shit-talker.
Bill Richardson- he didn't do so well. he supports "doing what is feasable" in order to gain queer civil rights, meaning he does not support full marriage equality. even when asked if a marriage equality came accross his desk would he sign it, he paused for a minute and reiterated that he "supports what is feasable and what is feasable is civil unions..." again you could see the frustration in the room.
Hillary Clinton- performed like a slightly better-spoken version of Obama...that's really all i have to say about her.
the only surprise was how horribly Richardson performed.
here is my response to the HRC presidential forum which you can see for yourself at:
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/200
Barak Hussien Obama- his name alone is seemingly enough to shake up the male white establishment, but when you take a look at his positions on the issues, it's obvious why he is able to have a name like barak hussien obama and still be a front-runner in this race. up to this point, my reservations on obama have been 1. his support of free-trade 2. his support of mandating private health insurance as opposed to universal medicare 3. he hasn't said he would pull out iraq and 4. his support the politcally safe term civil unions as opposed to marriage citing religious beliefs.
his responses to the HRC's questions were very scripted to the point that i was annoyed. he spoke of instating a "version of civil unions that would include full marriage benefits". he also went on to say it should be up to individual denominations whether to recognize gay unions as marriages. which i completely agree with except: our country has no problem with hetero civil marriages called marriages and to not instate the same institution by the same name for queer civil marriages is not only discriminatory, but a giant waste of time on the part of our government to draft up separate legislation for civil unions...
overall i feel like obama knows what he needs to say in order to get the GLBT vote, but i don't think if elected he'll do anything for our community.
Jonathan Edwards- has tried to appear to care about the working class, but also support free trade and prides himself as being the first fool in the race to call mandating private health insurance a universal health care plan.
During the forum he started to go off on tangent about how he visited the LA gay and lesbian center and how inspired and saddened he was by the youth some of whom are homeless because they came out to their families. he said it wasn't fair to use religious faith as an excuse to not provide civil rights for GLBT folks. he described his feeling towards these issues as a journey that he's still on and he doesn't know where he'll end up. but when asked where he thinks he'll end up, he totally fucked up any credibility he gained through that speech he said that his position hasn't changed. it was funny because you could see the frustration on the panelist's faces (especially mellissa etheridge).
Dennis Kucinich- this is the candidate i support because as i have pointed out before, his positions closely resemble mine ie. peace, choice, single payer not-for-profit healthcare, fair as opposed to free-trade etc.
during the forum he was asked if there was area in which he and the HRC disagreed and he couldn't think of anything. and it only get better from there. this forum only solidified his platform of peace and civil reform.
Mike Gravel- i feel like i would probably support him if Dennis Kucinich weren't running. i don't know how i feel about his healthcare vouchers plan which would be determined on projected need...my gut says it's silly because i don't see a way to fairly distribute these vouchers. but in either case, i appreciated his candor in the forum.
he rejects that the word marriage is a religious term because it predates religion. he questioned why he any GLBT would support any candidate other than one who supports full equality including marriage. i like gravel, he's a premium shit-talker.
Bill Richardson- he didn't do so well. he supports "doing what is feasable" in order to gain queer civil rights, meaning he does not support full marriage equality. even when asked if a marriage equality came accross his desk would he sign it, he paused for a minute and reiterated that he "supports what is feasable and what is feasable is civil unions..." again you could see the frustration in the room.
Hillary Clinton- performed like a slightly better-spoken version of Obama...that's really all i have to say about her.
the only surprise was how horribly Richardson performed.
