Patrick's debut on the national stage

I don't know... (0.00 / 0)

But I hope that most of us Devalers wouldn't want a president who has completed just 2/3 of his first term in the senate by the time he's elected (Obama) or a one-term senator who really doesn't have much government cred (Edwards). I mean, Gravel has a more serious resume than these two...

I will be working for (and I've donated to) Richardson as much as I can. Second choice is Hillary. I hope that most of us who voted for, phone banked for and turned out at events for Deval will work for an experienced Pres. candidate like Bill or Hill.

---

by: Migraine @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 22:57:25 PM CDT

Because, really, Hillary is the voice of experience... (0.00 / 0)

Those 6 months or so into her second term REALLY make her more qualified than Edwards, who spent only one full term in the senate. I mean, 6 months is so much more time, right?!

/snark off

The only person in the race who really has craptons of experience is Richardson, but he's also running a completely inept campaign by most accounts and lacks the cajones to walk his talk on such basic things as civil rights.

It's an appallingly weak field, as far as I'm concerned, with not one true-blue progressive among them. However, given the available choices so far, my gut instict says Edwards is the best bet in terms of policy, ability to stand up to Republicans and actually being the most consistent on civil rights (he's the only one I know of the big three fully against DOMA).

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 23:31:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

please elaborate... (0.00 / 0)

... on why you think Edwards would be better on civil rights issues than Sen. Obama, who spent the better part of his professional life as a civil rights litigator and has been outspoken in his support for civil unions at the national level?

I would think that the only way any of our current canidates could trump Obama on civil rights would be the go all the way and support gay marriage. But I have a feeling we'll have to wait for the next presidentail cycle before we see that.

Also, why do you think we have a lousy field? Just because most of our best canidates are senators? Please elaborate.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere- MLK, letter from a Birmingham jail

---

by: davesoko @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 23:41:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clearly, (0.00 / 0)

he uses a strict and exclusionary definition of civil rights that only extends to gays and lesbians.

---

by: Migraine @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 00:24:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exclusionary definition (0.00 / 0)

Ok, at the risk of hijacking this part of the thread...

Do you believe that Obama doesn't believe in equal marriage rights? Or do you think he's being forced to take a moderated stand on the issue because of national politics?

I think we in Massachusetts make a big mistake in assuming that national politicians can get away with supporting marriage rights, and I've heard this many times before. In the current environment, it would be a campaign killer.

I think it was the Boston Pheonix that pointed out recently that only 25 years ago, nearly 50% of Americans believed that interracial dating (nevermind marriage) should be illegal. 17% still believe that today.

The point here is that the battles we fight and win here in Massachusetts put us decades ahead of the rest of the country.

I am a progressive (and therefore have many questions about Obama outside of his stance on marriage), but I'm also a pragmatist. I don't think that any politician with national ambitions right now can afford to actively support equal marriage rights and win. Half our states now have amendments on their constitutions banning this. How crazy is that? An actual amendment on half our state's constitutions legalizing discrimination.

We have a long way to go before we can fix this on a national level, and demanding politicians on that stage agree with us right now seems like political suicide for the party.

Frankly, that's my biggest concern about Al Gore. Believe me, if he jumped in today, I'd probably back him. But while he'd certainly go a long way towards affecting the national dialog on the issue, I also think it could be a campaign killer in the general.

---

by: outside baseball @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 13:21:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You probably didn't mean to ask me this question. (0.00 / 0)

I totally agree that demanding answers from our candidates on campaign sinking issues like marriage is flat out not very bright, which is what I've written before. You probably meant to reply to Ryan with the above post cuz I'm with you.

---

by: Migraine @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 14:02:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because (0.00 / 0)

Doing campaigns via issue polls and focus groups has been so successful for Democrats?

How's that working for us?

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 00:19:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Al Gore? Does Gore support gay marriage? (0.00 / 0)

Yet another point in favor of a Gore run, in my opinion.  I basically agree with you and am willing to cut slack on certain issues to reflect the less enlightened masses.  However, I do not think this would neccessarily hurt a candidate.  Staking out an unpopular position on a controversial issue can sometimes work for a candidate and can move popular opinion, I think.  I guess we'll know when Deval runs in 2016.

As for Obama, he said this about gay marriage when running for Senate:  "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."  He wrote this in his book: "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I might be seen on the wrong side of history."  I aprreciate that he acknowledges he may(will) be on the wrong side of this debate in the long run, but I object to his qualifying the possible wrong-headedness of his opposition to marriage equality, to that of his support for reproductive freedom.  I'm sure its smart politics but it leaves me cold. 

---

by: melanie @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 16:34:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We're never going to (0.00 / 0)

"fix this problem" with that kind of an attitude. Sorry, but that's true. If we don't have real LEADERSHIP on marriage equality, nothing's going to get done.

By the by, have you seen opinion polls? A majority of the population supports either Civil Unions or outright marriage equality. I don't think it would take a real leader all that much effort to get the civil union peeps into the full marriage camp, but as long as they're whining, timid and afraid, that's not going to happen.

Even worse, marriage equality has ceased to be a big vote driver. Sure, people came out to vote against gay marriage when it was on the constitutional amendment, but we saw in Wisconsin and in Virginia that it doesn't necessarily translate into how people would vote on individual candidates.

Furthermore, as each year goes by millions of more Americans have gone on to support equal rights. That majority didn't exist 10 years ago - it was no where close. In just a decade, public opinion has shifted well more than 10%. Even better, we know that the youngest voters are hugely in favor of gay rights, while the oldest voters are the most against it. The shift in public opinion is quick and massive.

Lastly, we're in a primary campaign. That means the people who go out to vote, in large part, are going to be the liberals and progressives. If you don't think that the liberals and progressives who vote in primaries are supportive of marriage equality, I have a bridge to sell you. All the candidates have come out in favor of civil unions, except for Gravel and Kucinich (who have no chance). That means that the first real candidate to come out in favor of marriage equality would have a golden opportunity to instantly appeal to the large swath of democratic primary voters who consider glbt rights as one of the paramount issues. With 4 strong candidates, 30% of the vote or so will win many primaries outright. And, chances are, if that candidate wins the primary and sticks true to themselves, voters are going to care about Iraq and Health Care, not gay marriage. If any of the four biggest Dems wins and runs a decent campaign, they're probably going to beat the Republican with the Iraq war going on. It's in its "last throws" with the American people.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 00:00:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your answers: (0.00 / 0)

I'm so sorry I care about my right to be a first class citizen. Being a second class citizen isn't very fun. In about half the states in this country, I could be fired simply for my sexual orientation. Maybe you don't think that's a big deal, but I don't really give a damn.

Maybe Obama is better than Edwards on civil rights, but in terms of racial issues, I highly doubt Edwards is any worse than Obama. Furthermore, Edwards has really stressed classism and fair trade, which I think is deeply related to the overall civil rights battle.

Edwards is the only candidate who I know of that is against DOMA. Maybe you don't think that's a big deal, but DOMA is THE law that makes me into a second class citizen - more than any other. If DOMA were stripped, I could get married and move anywhere. I'd be entitled to federal benefits. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'injustice anywhere is a threat to injustice everywhere.' I don't think a candidate can be strong on civil rights and be for DOMA in any way, shape or form.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 00:04:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the lousy field (0.00 / 0)

I forgot to answer that part.

I find a serious flaw with each candidate.

Hillary - war hawk.

Richardson - doesn't walk his talk, isn't a good candidate.

Edwards - "I'm not there yet" drives me crazy. I didn't like him when he ran last time. He's grown on me, but still makes me crazy sometimes.

Obama - His BFF when he first got to the Senate was Joe Lieberman. Enough said. Suddenly, though he was pretty silent for years on the war, he's supposed to be the anti war candidate? Um... no thanks.

I don't feel as though I need to justify the other candidates, but I'll be happy to tell you about their serious flaws if you'd like.

I'll admit, I hope Gore jumps in. Not a single candidate in the bunch is willing to take a position that may not be popular - and that bothers me. A President has an amazing ability to truly lead America and use their bully pulpit to convince them of a better way, I don't see any of these current candidates able to do that in office like Gore has done with Global Warming or Dean did with Iraq (and I didn't even like Dean last time around).

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 00:15:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've decided to respond to this one, even though all fo your 4 posts are riddled with "thoughts and feelings" more than savvy and estute political observations (0.00 / 0)

Please don't equate marriage equality with ENDA, and other mainstream GLBT issues because they are very different. Voters haven't defeated ENDA by 70-30 margins like they have marriage. Also, do a bit more research because the automatic repeal of DOMA (which would need to be passed by congress, not the pres) wouldn't mean that you could get married anywhere and have fully automatic equal rights.

Theory vs. Reality

I know that you have strong feelings on these issues but perhaps some research would help you acquire a context for these issues and how they really play on the national level.

I agree with the feelings you express but conveying feelings, IMHO is not how you win political battles.

Again, I consider issues of children's rights, educational access and health care to be more important civil rights issues than gay marriage. If you insist that our top candidates should pander to the far left, I hope that you look seriously at Kucinich & Gravel and do all you can to get them elected...

ENDA is important... and much more winnable than marriage, I hope you know there's a difference.

---

by: Migraine @ Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 00:58:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um... (0.00 / 0)

So, you don't think that her job as the face of the US internationally, as First Lady, living in the White House for 8 years and her experience as a senator is simply 6 months more experience than Edwards? Your premise is going to make this conversation very difficult...

Also, I recommend that you work to expand your obviously narrow view of civil rights. While you may be one of the .1% (or whatever) who focus exclusively on gay marriage as your beacon of a candidates commitment to civil rights, I factor other issues in. Hillary has worked extensively on health care, education and children's issues... all of which I consider civil rights and FAR more important than DOMA.

We're not going to get 100% perfect!! If that's what you're looking for I suggest you examine Kucinich and Gravel and throw your support somewhere in that corner. I would prefer someone who is 100% ready to lead like Richardson or Clinton... I doubt that anybody actually believes that Obama and Edwards would have MUCH more on the job learning to do than the two I like. I mean, George Bush had more experience in State-wide electoral politics than Obama and we all know how that turned out.

---

by: Migraine @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 00:13:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

my bad (0.00 / 0)

I think I meant to say that I doubt anybody actually believes that Obama and Edwards are as ready to govern as Bill and Hill...

Late night blogging... must sleep...

---

by: Migraine @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 00:28:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mmmm, but keep in mind... (0.00 / 0)

Deval had ZERO expierience in electoral politics before last year, heck he didn't even show up to vote half the time. Yet we supported him in the primary over a two term incumbent attorney general, who had been a successful two term county DA before that, and a strong, known-quantity canidate (and previous cycle Lt-gov nominee) with with a reputation as an education policy wonk.

It's not how long you've been winning elections that's at issue here. It's what you can do once you've won them. Deval was an out of nowhere canidate, and so is Obama, who I think frankly would be our strongest nominee, and who would probably be a great president.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere- MLK, letter from a Birmingham jail

---

by: davesoko @ Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 23:48:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your point is important. (0.00 / 0)

And I'm not sure that my original comment actually made the argument that electoral politics is the only way to judge a candidate. I supported Deval for his business experience, his stint in the US AG's office etc.

Perhaps Obama would make a strong nominee... I think all of the top four would. What I'm looking for is who would make the strongest president once elected, and obviously Obama and Edwards would have a whole lot of on the job training. After watching Bush train on the job I fear that although both would obviously be better, they would exert less strength and control simply because they don't know how to do so in the same way that Richardson and Clinton would.

Again... all 4 are strong and electable candidates but only two are ready to lead in a way that will bring us back to a pre-Bush, pre-insanity existence and get right on undoing the damage that Bush has done. Only Clinton and Richardson have an expert understanding of our federal bureaucracy, me thinks. 

---

by: Migraine @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 00:22:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Biden (0.00 / 0)

To be fair, Biden has a great understanding of federal ways that outpaces Hillary, and possibly Richardson.  Unfortunately, he's owned by Bank of America...

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:12:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Our greatest nominee? Not so sure about that. (0.00 / 0)

Deval has a great combination of experiences.  I don't think Obama is as qualified as to become President as Deval was to become Governor.  I thought I'd love Obama at the beginning of the campaign because I thought he would be like Deval but I've found that isn't the case.  Actually, I find all three major candidates quite similar on the issues, particularly Obama and Hillary.  At this point, suprised as I am to say so, I'm leaning towards Hillary.  Her approach to the issues is more incremental then Edwards, and to a lesser extent Obama, however she has built so many strong relationship on both sides of the ailse in Congress that I believe she has the gravitas to make things happen. 

---

by: melanie @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 15:48:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Mike Gravel does have more experience than the lot of them (OK, I'll grant Richardson almost equal cred except for having a poorly run John Kerryesque campaign). 

The one thing I learned from the Deval campaign is that you pick a candidate based on their values, not the fuzzy logic presented by the media as to whom is in the top tier.  Deval didn't waiver on his values.  He is who he represented himself to be from day one.  He is a leader.  Mike Gravel is exactly what he says he is.

Any candidate who doesn't have the guts to say this war was a massive mistake and that it needs to end NOW is never going to get my vote.  The same is true for energy policies.  Any candidate who doesn't say we have to take immediate action on global warming is off my list.  We all stand to lose if the ultimate candidate is a waffler, a political strategist or guided by something other than strong values.  That's the lesson from the Kerry campaign.  This election requires someone who is not afraid. 

---

by: lolorb @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:42:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Define "here" (0.00 / 0)

There is a lot of grassroots love for Hillary, but it's not online.  Forgetting about blogging and online polls -- which we need to on occasion -- Hillary is getting the money, the support in real polls, somewhere.  She's got enough big-name endorsements that can move people.

So while her online army isn't much, she has real bodies doing real work for her.  Look at a lot of event in NH -- there's a good group of Hillary folks. 

As for Devalcolytes, I imagine most will go with Obama -- who's saying the same things Deval was saying, and it worked out great for him -- though others could fall with Edwards, Kucinich, or be waiting for Gore-dot.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:17:27 AM CDT

My own thoughts on the issue are this: (0.00 / 0)

There are several candidates running for the Democratic nomination who are more than qualified to hold the position for which they are running.

The top three, currently, seem to be Clinton, Edwards and Obama. While I like Edwards and think he's a good guy with a decent record, I just don't believe he is presidential material (whatever it is that "presidential material" is).

As for Obama, I was excited about him in the beginning. The thought of having him as a candidate was great! But now that I've looked at him more in depth, and now that the hype has been more than built up, I'm just not feeling it. Then with the small but telling missteps of his campaign (Clinton and the Indian Americans for example), well, i just don't think he'll be getting my vote. Maybe in 2016.

Then there's Hillary Clinton. Who I must admit I've loved since as far back as I can remember. She's got the determination, the skill, the connections and the experience (I'm including the 8 years she lived in the White House as First Lady and her 6 extra months in the Senate) to win the entire election and get this country back on the right track.

Now of course, if Gore gets in on the race, then I'm pretty sure I will cancel out all three of the above mentioned candidates all together and support him. But you know, he's not intending to run...


MassEngagement.com and LegalLove.Org

---

by: matthew02144 @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:11:13 AM CDT

Wow, that pretty much describes me. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: melanie @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 15:51:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think Clinton may win Massachusetts (0.00 / 0)

As to the MA ProgDem contingent, I'm not sure exactly who that is, the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party," perhaps? My sense, using that definition, is that progressive activists right now are split, as the comments here suggest, between Edwards and Obama. Based only on anecdotal information, it feels to me as though Richardson has dipped in the past few months, and Edwards risen. Obama and Clinton have always been the front-runners, in my book.

The larger group of non-activist progressives (i.e., people who might read BMG from time to time, like once a month, but never comment etc.) include, I suspect, a lot of Clinton supporters. My suspicion is that if you included those voters, Clinton would rise to parity. The war in particular is, I think, less important to those voters than other domestic issues. The broader Massachusetts Democratic voting contingent contains even more Clinton supporters. That's why I say I think she might win Massachusetts.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:51:06 AM CDT

She could win Massachusetts (0.00 / 0)

But I highly doubt she'd win BMG.

I've recently read that Al Gore has wiped his calender clean for the next six months. If he jumps in the race, I think he'll win here and in most other places.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:37:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does it matter who wins MA? (5.00 / 1)

Seriously with the new calendar we are absolutely insignificant. Who ever has already be declared the candidate will win MA. Our votes don't matter at all. The haven't mattered much in the past and they matter even less now.

---

by: cephme @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:29:57 AM CDT

no trust (0.00 / 0)

I don't trust Hillary on matters of war. I don't trust Hillary on matters of health care - she takes the most money of ANY of all the candidates including republicans - from big pharma. Obama takes quite a bit of money from them as well.  Our healthcare system will never be its best if it relies on companies making a profit.  Of course Gravel and Kucinich speak the most truth but will never get elected.  This leaves me eternally "undeclared" and forced to choose the lesser of the two evils in the end. 

Mark Snyder, QueerToday

---

by: milo200 @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:17:20 PM CDT

Sources? (0.00 / 0)

On your Hillary and Obama claims?

---

by: Migraine @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 13:13:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sources: big pharma buying candidates (0.00 / 0)

Michael Moore published the numbers but the source is Center for Responsive Politics.  They break down all donations...

http://www.michaelmo...

Also

http://www.opensecre...

Mark Snyder, QueerToday

---

by: milo200 @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 16:55:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too early for me (0.00 / 0)

I can see a lot of pluses and a few minuses in just about all of them.  If one were head and shoulders above the rest I'd commit, but I'll wait to see how it looks closer to the primaries.  Call it a cop-out, but I might even save my time and money for the general election. 

  - Dan

---

by: danseidman @ Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 13:21:10 PM CDT

It's not a cop out (0.00 / 0)

A LOT of people feel the same exact way as you. I'm supporting Edwards as of now, but I'd prefer to vote for Al Gore.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:38:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]