Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2005


Friday, 04 January 2008



You've given me a different perspective that had not occurred to me! Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Very interesting and IMHO very accurate.

As for Obama, I can’t imagine that he could be any worse to us (or better) than Mr. Clinton was.

On the Iowa caucus, Huckabee only got 36k votes! Hillary came in third and she got almost double that. (I am NO Hillary fan!) It’s a sad state of affairs when 36k people in a state with almost 3 million people in it can propel a man like Huckabee into contender status.



RE: Iowa Caucus

I’ve been surfing more and noticed that ALL sources are only stating percentages.
No mentions of vote totals. They are almost impossible to find.
The powers that be don’t want us to see what a SMALL percentage of people are deciding our future.


Richard, you are wrong about Obama being the first black man to win a primary.

Jesse Jackson won several in 1984 and 1988.

Also, last night was not a primary, but a caucus. Nitpicky point, but there are real and substantial differences between a primary as we know it here in NY and the Iowa caucus in terms of voting, procedure, how delegates are apportioned, etc.

See the link to DailyKos giving the history of Jackson's wins.

Jim Kelly

Obama is a Kennedyesque figure and a powerful orator. However, he cannot bring himself to stand for full equality for gay men and lesbians, which leaves me with the feeling that for all of his fine talk, he's not ready to back it up with courageous stands for social justice. I have serious questions in my mind about Obama.

Richard, as usual, you've hot the nail squarley on the head. Iowa was not a good night for us fags and dykes.

Jim Kelly

Jim Kelly

In my inbox, Joe Solmonese, post Iowa:

"In the coming days, we'll also continue our work in
Hampshire and increase our involvement in the race for
as the election year heats up."

Working for who? Hillary? What are they going to do now that their candidate, Mrs. Clinton, has been thoroughly thrashed by Obama?


Your insights are generally right on, but insisting that Obama drop support of his ant-gay pastor friend as a condition of support is self defeating. Haven't we learned that unless we unite behind a candidate who supports 90 percent of our agenda, we'll end up with another Dubya, or in case of Huckabee, worse. His supporters wont care if he doesn't meet all of the Republican's agenda. They'll accept a tax & spend candidate as long as he bashes us. Worse, they'll go to the polls.


I have my doubts about Obama sure, but really? If it comes down to it, at least he won't be actively pursing the right to hunt us down, and Hillary? Well, I would think the political wind blows strong enough, then she would say she has always been in favor of destroying us. Let's not forget it was her husband (and I do believe that the First Lady does have some sway over their husbands, enough to stop certain things from happening) that gave us DADT, instead of fighting congress and vetoing it, he went along with it. So, truly? No, there is no real candidate (perhaps Edwards, but even then shakey, he says leave it to the states, but get rid of DOMA (another Clinton era bill)) that supports gay rights, however, we must choose the one that will minimize the damage. Obama perhaps could be that canidate, not that I would vote for him, unless it was between him and either Huckabee or Mitt Romney (and few others)

The comments to this entry are closed.