Change *We* Can Believe In

Below is an excerpt from an open letter to be delivered to Obama before the convention. Go to the site to read it in its entirety and sign if you agree.

I am # 6,328

Change We Can Believe In

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

…

Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:

§ Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.

§ A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country’s collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.

§ Universal healthcare.

§ An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.

§ An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.

§ A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.

§ A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.

§ An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.

§ Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.

§ Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people

.

These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas–such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty–your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the “friends on the left” you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don’t. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.

McCain’s Former Strategist, Calls “Celeb” Ad “Childish”

His people are already distancing themselves in July for pity’s sake….

Marc Ambinder (July 30) – Weaver, McCain’s Former Strategist, Calls “Celeb” Ad “Childish” :
30 Jul 2008 04:10 pm
John Weaver,  for years one of John McCain’s closest friends and confidants, has been in exile since his resignation from McCain’s presidential campaign last year.    With the exception of an occasional interview, he has, by his own account, bit his tongue as McCain’s campaign has adopted a strategy that Weaver believes ‘diminishes John McCain.’
With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he’s had ‘enough.’
The ad’s premise, he said, is ‘childish.’”

Kucinich and Gravel on Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

Kucinich Righteous on the Issue

2007 HRC-LOGO debate on GLBT issues (all Republicans invited but only Democrats accepted): “On Civil Rights: Real GLBT equality includes the right to marry

Q: You’re one of just two candidates who fully supports same-sex marriage.
A: Why do you think that is?

A: This is really a question of whether you really believe in equality. When you understand what real equality is, you understand that people who love each other must have the opportunity to be able to express that in a way that is meaningful, and that the state should not be intervening against people, the state should be there on behalf of people, to make sure that that love has a chance to be facilitated.

Q: So what you’re saying is that Senator Obama and Senator Edwards, who sat here just moments ago both espousing equality–are you saying that they don’t truly oppose same sex marriage, that they’re just playing politics?

A: I’m saying that I stand for real equality and that this is really part of an American tradition because when you look at the founding documents, to me this is a foundational principle of who we are as a country.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007″

Gravel Knocks It Out of the Park

2007 HRC-LOGO debate on GLBT issues (all Republicans invited but only Democrats accepted): “On Civil Rights: Marriage preceded religion; it’s not a religious term

Stop and think. What is marriage? I resent religion saying that it’s a religious term. It’s not. Marriage preceded all forms of religion in civilization. Marriage is a commitment between two human beings in love. And understand me; I’m saying two human beings. They can be heterosexual. They can be two lesbians. They can be transgender. They can be two gays. What it is, it’s a commitment of human beings in love. And if there’s anything we need in this world, it’s more love.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Q: Why do you think Obama and Edwards and Clinton do not support full same-sex marriage rights?

A: Well, it’s because they’re playing it safe. They’re not going to lose any votes over not being for marriage, whatever their excuses are. They’re going to win. This is costing votes for us. I don’t care. I don’t want those votes. So you want to know the difference? A good politician can tell you to go to hell and make you look forward to the trip. We see a lot of that.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007″

Obama on Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

2007 HRC-LOGO debate on GLBT issues (all Republicans invited but only Democrats accepted): “On Civil Rights: We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions

It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you’re a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it’s like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.
That’s why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That’s why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.
When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

On Civil Rights: Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church

Q: You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. What place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?

A: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don’t think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

On Civil Rights: Disentangle gay rights from the word ‘marriage’

Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?

A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word ‘marriage,’ which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would’ve come up. I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

On Civil Rights: Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights

Q: On the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where [your stance of separating gay rights from the word 'marriage'] comes across as sounding like ’separate but equal’?

A: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it’s something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it’s not for me to suggest that you shouldn’t be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007″

Edwards on Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

2007 HRC-LOGO debate on GLBT issues (all Republicans invited but only Democrats accepted): “On Civil Rights: On journey about same-sex marriage, but does not support it

Q: You’ve raised your faith as part of the reason for your opposition to same-sex marriage.
A: I shouldn’t have said that, because I believe, to my core, in equality.
Q: If it is not your faith, then what is at the core of that resistance? I know that you said you’re on a journey, and I’m curious where and when you might end up on that journey.
A: I can tell you where I am. First of all, I think you deserve to know the truth, and the truth is that my position on same sex marriage has not changed. I do believe strongly in civil unions and the substantive rights that go with that. I believe we desperately need to get rid of DOMA. I think we need to get rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ I think we need to get rid of those things. Today I believe in all these other things, but I do not support same sex marriage. All I can tell you is where I am today. That’s the best I can do. You deserve to know that from me.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007″

(Via .)

HRC on Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

2007 HRC-LOGO debate on GLBT issues (all Republicans invited but only Democrats accepted): “Hillary Clinton in 2007 Democratic primary debate on GLBT issues

On Civil Rights: Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits

Q: What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?
A: Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, & I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges. I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits.
And I’ve also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage. I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed, same-sex relationships. I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president.
I don’t know that we could have defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment if we had not had DOMA. I mean, that is something that, you know, has provided a great protection against what was clearly the Republican strategy, to just cynically use marriage as a political tool.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007″

(Via .)

WaPo Weisman Battles Short Attention Span

<p

>Obama’s Symbolic Importance | The Trail | washingtonpost.com:

Obama’s Symbolic Importance

7/30/08

By Jonathan Weisman

In his closed door meeting with House Democrats Tuesday night, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama delivered a real zinger, according to a witness, suggesting that he was beginning to believe his own hype.

Obama was waxing lyrical about last week’s trip to Europe, when he concluded, according to the meeting attendee, ‘this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for.’

The 200,000 souls who thronged to his speech in Berlin came not just for him, he told the enthralled audience of congressional representatives. ‘I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,’ he said, according to the source.”

Ooh, so that’s kinda PRESUMPTUOUS! Wonder how it played on Morning Joe?

Wait, coming in now….we have some context…

The Page – by Mark Halperin – TIME: “

‘His entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: ‘It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol … .’”