Guest Conway Posted August 12, 2007 Posted August 12, 2007 Being of red state persuasion myself, I'm interested to hear reaction from some of you to the statements and or actions of two of the Democratic candidates for President last week. First Obama: In answering a question before a largely African American audience about AIDs testing, he took the opportunity to enforce the fact that he is straight before answering the question. Some folks found that unnecessary and a bit insulting to gay voters. After all, in the past twenty years, our society has come to accept that AIDS is hardly just a gay illness. If you supported Obama before, does this make a difference in your opinion now? I still view him as a candidate that I could possibly vote for in the 2008 election. I think he was just speaking to his audience. Second Richardson: I'm sure that everyone who watched the LOGO debate heard Richardson's gaff in which he referred to homosexuality as a choice. That's certainly something that wouldn't surprise me coming, say, from Sam Brownbeck or another of the GOP's social conservatives. But, it did surprise me coming from Richardson, who, up until that point probably would have earned by vote in a national election against Romney or Giuliani. More troubling to me was the subsequent revelation that Richardson had used the term "maricon" in an appearance on the Imus radio show almost a year ago. I haven't heard a strong consensus among gay voters for Richardson before the gaff. So, that said, if you viewed him as a candidate that you could support before, do you still view him that way? The "maricon" issue is far less forgivable to me than the choice issue is. Quote
AdamSmith Posted August 12, 2007 Posted August 12, 2007 My $0.02... I was surprised how irritated I was by Obama's debate aside emphasizing that he got tested for HIV with his wife. If he presented it as a half-joke, still jokes like this show what someone is really thinking. In the LOGO debate, he seemed respectful, at ease personally, and knowledgeable about a number of the issues. But his tortuous conflation of civil marriage with the freedom-of-religion issue of each denomination's right to determine what forms of relatedness it will and will not recognize -- he knows better. At least Hillary did not resort to such a reach in defending her own civil-unions-but-not-marriage position. I don't like it but for some reason I can accept her holding that position as an art-of-what's-possible-for-now compromise. To me, Bill Richardson could arguably be the best Democratic candidate. Except -- can he win? And could he lead? But I agree his maricon crack was pretty ugly, and I don't buy his excuses. Exposing what amount to my own prejudices, I have seen firsthand too many Hispanic parents' violent reaction to a child's revelation of being gay, to the point of disownment. I cannot think of Richardson and gay issues without this shadowing my perceptions. Back to the LOGO debate -- I was a little surprised how John Edwards seemed nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof. Not too surprised, though. His ignorance of the issues, compared with almost everyone else, was interesting to see. In his closing remarks, just one example, he mentioned people facing job discrimination due to "sexual orientation," missing completely the distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity -- the reason behind the firing of the transgender person in the audience whom he was alluding to. In watching him, I've come to think he learns issues only to the depth of a lawyer preparing his summation. (As I've noted here before, I know many dyed-in-the-wool Democrats in N.C. who came to view him as a big phony during his Senate term. That is to say, an even bigger phony than most politicians.) Quote
