Obama Expresses Concern Over Anti-Gay Surgeon General Nom.
Barack Obama the first of the Dem candidates to come down on Dr. James Holsinger, Bush's nominee for Surgeon General:
"America’s top doctor should be a doctor for all Americans, and so I have serious reservations about nominating someone who would inject his own anti-gay ideology into critical decisions about the health and well-being of our nation. As with other nominees, I will listen to the testimony of Dr. James Holsinger, but this Administration must know that the United States Surgeon General’s office is no place for bigotry or ideology that would trump sound science and good judgment."
You may have missed...
Surgeon General Nominee Holsinger Has Broad Anti-gay Bias [tr]
Posted Jun. 8,2007 at 4:30 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Election 2008, George W. Bush, Health, News | Permalink
Barack Obama is NOT a friend of the homosexual community. He is simply using us to help get himself elected.
Hillary ain't perfect, but she's a damn site better than the Oprah Winfrey product Obama!
Posted by: whatever | Jun 8, 2007 5:10:26 PM
Not so fast. Edwards was out with a statement at 10 AM EST today. This is picky, but let's find out first when Obama spoke.
Posted by: Greg | Jun 8, 2007 5:11:12 PM
When AIDS came out in 1981-82, nobody cared to look for a cure because it was the "Gay Disease". The next disease that appears in the population and the Surgeon General does not considers to look for a cure because the gays show it first is the kind of mentality that a person like Dr. James Holsinger brings with him. I say let the straights suffer based in this kind of mentality. Hello Africa.
Posted by: Oscar | Jun 8, 2007 5:13:28 PM
Okay Whatever An honest response would have been neither Hilary or Obama should get any props when it comes to gay stuff; however, why should I expect intellectual honesty.
Posted by: James | Jun 8, 2007 5:14:25 PM
Hillary Clinton is NOT a friend of the homosexual community. She is simply using us to help herself get elected.
Obama ain't perfect, but he's a damn site better than the Bill Clinton product Obama!
Rings just a little truer, doesn't it?
Posted by: 24play | Jun 8, 2007 5:15:06 PM
"Barack Obama is NOT a friend of the homosexual community. He is simply using us to help get himself elected."
Do you honestly think that the gay voting bloc is large enough or there are enough people who have gay rights as a litmus test for us to be worth using to get elected? The only way that gay people are used to get elected is to push anti- gay marriage amendments to fire up the rightwing base, not the other way around.
Posted by: Charles | Jun 8, 2007 5:25:49 PM
Sorry, that last "Obama" should obviously be "Hillary."
But while we're on the subject, I noted the other day that in Obama's stump speech given at historically black Hampton College--a speech that was filled with references to his Christian faith--the senator from Illinois still managed to decry the scapegoating of gays:
"And when we try to have an honest debate about the crises we face, whether it’s from the pulpit or the campaign trail, the pundits don’t want us to find common ground, they want us to find someone to blame. They want to divide us into Red States and Blue States, and tell us to always point the finger at somebody else - the other party, or gay people, or people of faith, or immigrants."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/obama_and_pover.html
The gay reference was certainly unnecessary, possibly unwise, but completely Obama, if I read him correctly.
Can any of you Shills for Hill imagine your candidate of choice making a similar reference in front of a black audience, in a speech where the religious references were ladled on thick--especially at this point in the primary chase?
I certainly can't. Nor can I imagine anyone making a serious case for Hillary being the "obvious" choice of candidate if we're looking for a candidate who is more likely to speak inconvenient truths to unresponsive audiences than to just to pander-as-usual.
Posted by: 24play | Jun 8, 2007 5:34:49 PM
I wish Obama would express concern over the fact that, thanks to the fact that we can't marry the ones we love, the GLBT population is disadvantaged minority. I wish Obama would express concern that GLBT soldiers are unfairly by the military when they are discharged simply because of who they love. I wish Obama would show us that he understand our struggles and wants to do something to alleviate the inequality faced by GLBT AMERICANS every day. Instead, we're going to get crumbs like opposing the nomination of a Surgeon General. I suppose it's a start, but it still feels like crumbs.
Posted by: peterparker | Jun 8, 2007 5:58:34 PM
Well Charles, if 12 to 14 percent of the population is gay (And all us homo's know it's a large percentage than that), then yes we can help get someone elected! Do the math!!!
Posted by: whatever | Jun 8, 2007 6:10:53 PM
John Edwards' statement re Mary Cheney's baby doctor:
"In a profession dedicated to healing and compassion, it cannot be hard to find a qualified candidate for Surgeon General who sees all human beings as equals. Instead, President Bush has sought out a nominee who will divide America. Dr. James Holsinger's anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care."
Posted by: JP | Jun 8, 2007 6:18:11 PM
hillary and obama are the paris hilton and anderson cooper of politics. i wish they all would go away. i am tired of them all.
Posted by: titus | Jun 8, 2007 6:28:05 PM
You people are speaking as if you are all Republicans. Maybe you are and if you are, I...well whatever, im not going into that.
I'm a woman and I'm for Hillary because she's a woman. You gay men are no better than any other man. Men stink so far. It's time for a woman to do the job. Hillary would be our first woman president. C'mon people the choice is so clear.
It's funny, on the lesbian blogs, Hill is the favorite. Here on this blog it's like no one is. Lesbians vote more than gay men do, gay men are bad at politics. They are lousy! Those are fighting words so get mad and get voting!
Sometimes I feel like running into a gay bar and dragging all those wannab-e Ken dolls prancing around drunk by their hair and drag them to the voting booth. Stupid some of them will probably vote Republican.
Democrats need the Presidency, a large House majority, and a large Senate majority to pass ANY glbt rights. What part of that don't you understand? You are all like so clueless as to how the process works. Republicans do not do anything, they have had the majority for the past 12 years. They control the committees, you morons, nothing goes onto the floor unless the committee sends it there...
Gays will never ever get any rights at the federal level if Republicans still have the seats - they need to be taken out, a lot of them, too many leftovers and dead meat Grandpas need to be sent back to Bigotville, Bush Country!
Posted by: juliana | Jun 8, 2007 6:59:09 PM
Juliana,
Hillary is hardly the only Democrat in the race.
You've previously informed us, at length, of your intention to vote for Hillary because she has a vajayjay. If that were a reasonable criteria, you'd be right--the choice would be clear. So congratulations on your, uh, clarity.
Why don't you get back to us if and when you have something to add to a discussion about the 2008 presidential race? Until then, the mean old mens here on Towleroad's board will just have to struggle struggle on in our estrogen-challenged fashion.
Posted by: 24play | Jun 8, 2007 7:23:32 PM
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/californiaa.html < To all "questioning" voters, look at the results of the California marriage vote - NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR. ALL VOTE AGAINST. A shame in a two-party system.
Democrats, with their 48-32 majority, managed to get a 42-34 vote for marriage, which Gov. Schwarzenegger will veto if it passes the Senate like it did two years ago.
Posted by: juliana | Jun 8, 2007 7:26:11 PM
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/californiaa.html < To all "questioning" voters, look at the results of the California marriage vote - NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR. ALL VOTE AGAINST. A shame in a two-party system.
Democrats, with their 48-32 majority, managed to get a 42-34 vote for marriage, which Gov. Schwarzenegger will veto if it passes the Senate like it did two years ago.
Posted by: juliana | Jun 8, 2007 7:26:26 PM
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/californiaa.html < To all "questioning" voters, look at the results of the California marriage vote - NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR. ALL VOTE AGAINST. A shame in a two-party system.
Democrats, with their 48-32 majority, managed to get a 42-34 vote for marriage, which Gov. Schwarzenegger will veto if it passes the Senate like it did two years ago.
Posted by: juliana | Jun 8, 2007 7:26:36 PM
Okay Juliana, you've convinced me.
If Hillary will withdraw from the presidential race, move to California, and run for governor, I'll move to California and vote for her.
Posted by: 24play | Jun 8, 2007 7:30:24 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/us/politics/08gays.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
We have 2 parties but for us, only 1 party - the Democrats. The Republicans are so far right of Attila the Hun - hard-core, anti-gay social and religious conservatives.
If any GLBT person either does not vote or votes for a Republican in 2008, you will be voting against your own kind - which at this time in our history is intolerable. It should be very badly frowned upon in the gay community to not vote Democratic all the time, in every election.
Posted by: juliana | Jun 8, 2007 7:32:07 PM
For all those who don like Hillary-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSPxGmePSiA
Where's your Obama and your Edwards? No where to be found! Hillary is the GLBT candidate, no one else. And I will do everything in my power (which isn't a lot - i dont have a lot of power) to make sure she not only wins the White House and makes American history as the first woman President ever, but gets a Congress deserving of her work - a Democratic Congress... We must gain at least 30 more seats in the House and wipe out as many Republicans in the 2008 cycle as possible. In the state legislatures, we must fight hard - in Texas House and Senate, in Pennsylvania Senate, and very hard in Florida, where there is an active and large South Florida community that has been waiting an eternity for a vote on one of our bills to come up in the Republican-run statehouse.
Posted by: juliana | Jun 8, 2007 7:36:22 PM
Juliana,
Spare us the hysterical holier than thou noise. Old and tired. Glad you have found Hilary to be your candidate, but to say the choice is clear is to practice silly partisan rhetoric. Hilary is not for gay marriage, JUST like every other candidate who wants to win. As for gays getting stuff with Dems, pleeeze. We got DADT and DOMA.
I'm no friend of the GOP but do not insult us by yapping how wonderful the Dems are. Be honest and say they are an imperfect choice.
Posted by: James | Jun 8, 2007 7:41:34 PM
Juliana, that microchip HRC had implanted in your head must be throbbing like a motherfucker right now. I'm sorry.
As for the rest of us—chipless—we already know that HRC will be endorsing Hillary for the Democratic nomination for president. They've been bought and paid for, so it's no surprise to see Joe Somonese's nose way up Hill's ass on a dais somewhere.
Fortunately, HRC's endorsement doesn't count for shit in the community.
Posted by: 24play | Jun 8, 2007 7:44:31 PM
At this point, I'm still not sure who will get my vote come November 2008. Right now, I'm still listening and debating, and I'm looking at things like this.
In the meantime, I don't want anyone marginalized. Discrimination is always wrong.
Posted by: Jack | Jun 8, 2007 8:05:21 PM
I happen to like Hillary.
She happens to have bigger balls than any other candidate, and in a bar fight I'd rather have HER watch my back!
You just KNOW who wore the pants in that family.....and you can imagine all the screaming and broken china after Monica - LOVE IT!
I'd trust her with the nuclear codes way before any of those other fuckers.
Posted by: Jordan | Jun 8, 2007 8:28:24 PM
OK. Seriously. Do people REALLY think Hillary has a chance of winning? I simply cannot understand this thinking. She is divisive and will bring out the right wing in DROVES to vote against her. Meanwhile she's not charismatic enough to rally the liberal troops.
If I'm going to throw away my vote on anyone it's not going to be on Hillary. I'm writing in 'Kucinich'!!
Posted by: Gregg | Jun 9, 2007 12:08:26 AM
I think the new President (I refuse to say my new president) will be Rudy Giuliani, that there will be hardly any change in the Congress, and that things in America will stay the same, which means things will continue to be conservative.
America may not be ready to elect Hillary (a woman), but I don't see Barack Hussein Obama (sorry, but that's his full name) really becoming the successor of a man like George Bush. It just doesn't seem to work - two men so different from one another... the country hasn't changed that much in eight years.
With his "moderate views" of the past, Giuliani will get Independents and still keep the Republican base. If he really wants to win them over bigtime, he should talk about how he's going to ship off all the illegal immigrants back to Mexico.
President Giuliani will probably nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, a conservative woman in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor.
I do not suspect that the Roe vs. Wade decision will last long, although I do suspect that the Republicans are purposing holding off on that decision so they can continue to rally their pro-life base and use it to win tough elections.
Eventually though, something's gotta give. It will take this entire century though for many states to change their marriage laws. I think that for the gay community, gay marriage symbolizes more than a law or a license
Posted by: juliana | Jun 9, 2007 2:42:35 AM