Okay, I'm gonna say it....

Does anyone else here think that our "fierce advocate" in the WH could have sent a very positive message of support by smashing DADT prior to the elections? Might that have made a difference in places such as Maine?

Watching CNN last night, Blitzer and a panel of pundits were discussion Maine's marriage equality ballot measure and one among the panel (was it Gergen?) admitted that the Obama administration had declined to send any kind of representative to Maine in support of equality, supposedly on the basis that they didn't want to be perceived as inserting themselves in matters of states' rights. WTF??? What year is this, 1860?

Well hell then, all that says to me is that the party leaders either don't really give a crap about us, fear any association with equality movement as political poison, or both. It's time to LEAD, Mr. President. While you're still pondering DADT there are organized protests of haters just blocks from your steps who are actively working to deny equal rights in the District of Columbia.

No one forced this job on you, Mr. President. You campaigned for it. You made promises you have not kept. You have made claims about your fierce advocacy for GLBT equality, ones you have yet to prove by example. You cannot sacrifice the support of the GLBT community (and their supporters) as a strategy to gain favor among the conservatives and independents. They have shown their true colors and if anything, yesterday was proof of that.

BUT the reason I wanted Hillary over him, is because I felt he wasn't ready. I didn't think he had gotten his tiger going yet. He is a good man but he is not at "fierce" as you say. JFK was young but he was more of a fighter than Obama. I think if Obama realizes that he can't communicate with the republicans, that he was elected to serve the people and gets to it, and the republicans be damned he will get somewhere.

I would love for him NOW to come out swinging and say he AIN'T GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE. That no one can say he didn't try with the republicans. But all they want is for his presidency to fail. If they were for the American people they would have protested and jumped all over bush. They didn't. Congress (the majority of republicans) kissed bush butt right and left so we know...we know for sure they just want him to fail.

Has then been one democratic president that the right did not fight against try to obstruct and look at JFK (I still think it was a republican conspiracy). Look at FDR(bush's grandfather tried to set up the big business' to get someone to just overthrow him). So from day one they have been violent, anti-American, pro big business and against their own people. So Obama should just TAKE OFF AND GET IT DONE.

They'll flounce in, dropping some turd on this thread about 64-level chess, and chastize us for all being children.

I think they should stay in the closet and gloat, that's their choice and I respect it as long as it doesn't interfere with my choice, which is to run their ass through a collapsing Schrodinger wave equation, with one hemisphere tied behind my side, if they show up to this funeral.

it's a safe bet he's not going to touch something controversial.

When the final verdict is written on Obama's presidency, I suspect it will be that he began with great potential that he never fulfilled due to his extreme and often dysfunctional aversion to conflict.

We all know how well that worked for Chamberlain. And though Prez Obama seems not to recognize it, most of us here know that the right views appeasement as a sign of weakness, or as blood in the water. The sharks are circling.

Clinton was the same way--he would knock a Democrat into the dirt in his rush to embrace some Republican who despised him.

I thought Clinton had it bad, but Obama is even worse.

He obviously wanted "no" to win, but without his active support (so that he couldn't be tarred with it later). This narrow loss makes clear that it could have been a victory if he had spent a little political capital. This obviously leaves him open to reasonable concerns re: what his "support" of any particular position really means.

This isn't the only issue that the base cares about that the administration appears to be hiding from. If they don't get their act together it will cost them more than any Republican "resurgency" will (and will allow the right more opportunity to spin victories as the electorate moving to the right... when it's really the left fed up with "representatives" that don't represent us even when they have clear majorities).

Just my .02

didn't help Gov. Corzine in NJ, in fact, local political analysis conjectured that his five visits to NJ worked to gin up the opposition to Corzine. Chris Christie is a nasty politician who first used smear tactics to win the primary from uber-conservative Thomas Lonegan, and many reich wingers were still smarting from that. They "got over" it to send a message to President Obama.

Clearly, in Maine, the religious right was able to marshall its forces in an off-year election, the President's leadership or lack of it probably had nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry. I know I can't truly understand, because although I worked my tail off for Fair Wisconsin (another state down the tubes), I'm still just your basic middle-aged white straight woman who hasn't had to live with the discrimination that too many in our country have known for their entire lives.

I'm just sorry. Sorry that the controlling, religious factions are whipping up their people, and smelling blood in the water. The more they fear and hate, the more they strike out. The more they strike out, the more powerful they feel. They have lost any consideration for humanity, any empathy or understanding. It's all about oppression and control and power.

I'm just sorry. :hug:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

correct our "wrong" thinking on this thread. I am sure he/they will be here soon enough...

And those have already made their presence known.

free republic.

But they'll lob unreccs from afar.

But they have unlimited access to unrec'd, where they can still undermine us whilst under the cloak of anonymity.

No one has been more critical of Obama's position (or lack thereof) than me. However, it's self-abuse to speculate what might have been different if he had done...anything. We'll never know.

We know that Obama is not with us. We know that most religious organizations are actively fighting us. We know that younger people tend to vote for us, and older people do not.

So, we need to concentrate on crippling religion's ability to wage war on us, by making it financially difficult for them to do so. That means getting their tax exempt status removed, as well as getting people to stop giving them money.

We also have to pray very, very hard that all the ignorant old bigots die very, very soon. As painfully as possible.

You'll have to forgive me for this...

I know that polls say that the young overwhelmingly favor gay marriage, but we do not know what they did once they entered the voting booth.

I'd like to hope that they did the right thing, but I also have to wonder how many did not.

However, just based on my own experience, I do believe that young people don't have much of an issue with homosexuality on a societal level. There's still enough ingrained homophobia in them that you could provoke them by suggesting that THEY are gay, but they seem, by and large, comfortable with the idea of gay people doing whatever they want. I thoroughly believe that once the old people finish dying off, things will be much better for the gays in America.

I can't find what I'm looking for regarding DOMA. As best that I remember that piece of crap legislation was federal, and defined marriage as between one man one woman. When I keep seeing Gibbs statement about the President 'letting states decide', how does DOMA apply?

Years ago I bookmarked a reference that was basically a quick guide to DOMA, but I no longer have it. Thanks for any help in refreshing my memory.

ETA: Never mind I found something at DOMA watch and I'm refreshing my memory now.

That little disconnect will never fail to do some serious noggin damage. It's one of the biggest pieces of venal WTFery on display in contemporary politics.

There's no explanation, excuse, nor justification sound enough to make it work out to anyone's logical satisfaction. So when you mention it, people just scream a lot and flip out. Because they sure as hell can't answer for it.

At least not without dipping their toes in bigoted waters. Which surprisingly many of them are all too willing to do.