The Alligator

While the L/G/B/T community in California is adroit at organizing; this year the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Conservative U.S. Christians see California’s gay marriage issue as a defining battle that could set the stage for a national showdown and get the vote out for the Republican Party in the November presidential election especially in California. “People feel like this California fight is for all the marbles,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Reuters at the SBC’s annual meeting in Indianapolis.

Remember 2004? Anti Gay Marriage initiatives were on the ballot in many of the states that are considered “swing states” for the Presidential election. They played a role in President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election as they brought Republican conservative religious voters to the polls especially in Ohio – the state that was critical to Mr. Bush’s “success”.

As good and as talented as our community is at getting out the vote and educating the public, the other side is often just as, if not more, successful. That is why a recent conference call the Obama campaign had for some members of the LGBT community worried me.

The call was quickly put together not long after Senator Obama became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and I thought the call would be a pep rally for Mr. Obama. As a long time supporter of Mr. Obama, I was looking forward to the pep rally; but instead it was a “community healing” call. I knew that there were many in the LGBT community that supported Senator Clinton but I did not realize the extreme passion and the depth of disappointment held by many.

Former Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Elizabeth Birch who led the organization when I served on its Board of Governors spoke about the night when she heard the news that Mr. Obama clinched the nomination. She said that she was in San Francisco having dinner with some of our local power gays when the news came in and she burst into tears. She described her searing disappointment and told those of us on the call that for those in our community that supported Mrs. Clinton in the primary season it would take some time to heal.

In all due respect to Ms. Birch, Senator Clinton’s supporters in our community had better take a crash course in grieving and healing. We have a battle on our hands here in California. If the radical right out organizes us and is successful, it is plausible that not only would we see gay marriage become unconstitutional but we could see California’s Presidential Electoral College Prize of 55 votes go to Mr. McCain. I know that many think that a McCain victory in California is unlikely, but I am concerned that if we feel too secure we could very well be surprised.

Our community doesn’t have a moment to lose, Mrs. Clinton’s supporters need to buck up and become eager participants in this year’s fights for both gay marriage and for an Obama presidency. Moreover, many of my friends living in California who aren’t fans of the two parties- Democratic and Republican- have had the luxury of voting their “conscience” by voting for the Green Party or another “third party” because it is safe to assume that the Democrat will win the state and thus they wouldn’t be inadvertently helping a Republican presidential candidate by their vote. This year that choice is not an option. While we may think California is safe for Mr. Obama, we cannot and should not underestimate the political prowess and organizing skills of the radical religious right.

 My partner and I are planning to get married in September at the time of our 20th anniversary as a couple; and for those of us getting married between now and the November election I have a request.  Instead of registering at Pottery Barn, have your friends and family make a donation to the umbrella coalition that includes civil rights, faith, choice, labor and community of color organizations that will be leading the fight against the anti-gay amendment initiative- Equality for All  (www.equalityforall.com/weddingregistry). There is no better way to celebrate our marriages than by providing a profound legacy for LGBT’s in California and throughout the world.

It is critical that our community, in all of its glorious diversity, be united and be active in this year’s election. The stakes for our community, our state and our nation have never in my lifetime of 50 years seemed so high.

I definitely understand the disappointment among many of Senator Clinton’s supporters that she did not become the Democratic nominee (See my post- An Open Letter to Supporters of Hillary Clinton from a Supporter of Barack Obama).  Believe me – I understand, as a gay man I know that it is unlikely I will see adequate representation from my community in government during my lifetime. Currently there are 2 members of Congress that are openly gay- Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Congresswoman Tammy Bladwin (D-WI). Ms. Baldwin was elected openly gay, Mr. Frank came out after he was a member of Congress.  There have been a total of four members of Congress who were openly gay in the history of the nation.

How many Americans are aware of the history of the first openly gay elected official- Harvey Milk? Milk was a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors and was assassinated along with San Francisco mayor George Moscone by another San Francisco politico- Dan White. Most Americans haven’t heard of him even though there is an Academy Award winning documentary about him and a mainstream Hollywood film directed by Gus Van Sant and starring Sean Penn due out in December. So- I am acutely aware of being part of a community that does not have the sort of representation appropriate in government.

I guess as a gay man it feels a little odd for me to hear some of the vitriol from women about Mr. Obama and this campaign. The idea that I do not have my community being represented in government is understood. Should I be enragaged? Probably- but I am not. I also live in a city where all of my representatives in Congress are women- two powerful Senators, Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Boxer, and the first woman to be Speaker of the House, Mrs. Pelosi. I am used to having women in power in government. Sure it isn’t President, but women in politics and power have definitely been more normal for me and my fellow San Franciscans than many others in this nation.

Senator Clinton gave what was arguably the best speech of her career yesterday when she suspended her campaign and endorsed Senator Obama. I say this not because she endorsed Mr. Obama but because she gave one heck of a speech- it was simply brilliant. I would say Mrs. Clinton found her voice yesterday- her speech soared on the issue of unity, issues and women’s rights and history. She pleaded with her supporters to support Senator Obama with enthusiasm, in my open letter yesterday, I repeated that plea.

I agree that there was misogyny in the media covering this race. Racism was also apparent. But it concerns me greatly that many women are defiantly angry about the Obama nominee. One of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters protesting at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee- Harriet Chistian- was angry and her speech was laced with blatant racism. Geraldine Ferraro- a trailblazer for women made comments that were, to say the least, uncomfortable due to a strong whiff of racism. These are extreme cases. But I have talked to some women who aren’t being racist who are angry. I had dinner with relatives on Tuesday night- the evening where Obama clinched the nomination and my aunt, a liberal Democrat, was visceral in her negative reactions to Mr. Obama. I was truly shocked.

On Friday I was on a conference call that the Obama campaign had with many of us in the LGBT community. It was a conference call meant to heal the wounds of those in the LGBT community that supported Mrs. Clinton (the vast majority of the LGBT community in the nation supported Mrs. Clinton). One of the participants on the call was an old friend who I admire greatly- the former Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign, Elizabeth Birch. I had a warm relationship with Elizabeth when I was on the Board of Governors of HRC in the late 1990’s and respect and admire her and her former partner Hillary Rosen greatly. I was astonished that Elizabeth spoke of her deep disappointment that Senator Clinton had lost the nomination and that the loss had driven her to tears.

All of this confuses me. I understand the strong desire to have your voice heard in the highest corridor of power- that is a dream I know I will never achieve as a gay American. I must say that I also find all of the hand wringing about Mrs. Clinton’s defeat is a slap in the face to the Speaker of the House. Mrs. Pelosi shattered that marble ceiling in the male dominated halls of Congress and presently- her accomplishments are being completely ignored.

Don’t get me wrong- I admire Mrs. Clinton greatly and I weighed carefully my choice before coming out for Mr. Obama. In due respect though- Mrs. Clinton’s political chops and most of the experience that she has are due precisely because she is the wife of a former Governor and a former President. There is no doubt Mrs. Clinton is formidable in her own right, but clearly the path was paved for her because of her husband’s career. Contrarily Mrs. Pelosi ascended to the Speakership completely on her own merits and without any perks due to a last name that opened doors. I admire Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments but Mrs. Pelosi’s accomplishments inspire me.

There was so much anger among many about Mrs. Clinton not being the nominee, I felt that the history of nominating an African American was eclipsed. Mr. Obama made significant history on Tuesday night but I honestly feel that all of the drama around Mrs. Clinton’s situation eclipsed this moment for Mr. Obama and the African American community. I find that to be incredibly unfair.

Women and African Americans have historically been shut out of power in our government and our nation’s record is pitiful with both communities but it truly is appalling with African Americans. In all of American history there have been 245 women in Congress, 35 of them in the Senate. In all of American history there have been 121 African Americans in Congress, 5 of them in the Senate. The current 110th Congress has among its members 61 women in the House and 16 women in the Senate. The 110th Congress has 37 members of the House and 1 member of the Senate. Clearly there has only been one woman Speaker and no African American.

Women and African Americans were not included in the original dream of this nation. Women and African American fought hard to get their franchise and arguably many African Americans continue to be denied their franchise by overt and covert creative ways throughout this country. In 2008 there are communities that aggressively look to suppress voting from African Americans.

One community was not disrespected at the expense of the other. Quite frankly- I had been under the impression that it would be easier elect a white woman for President than an African American man. Maybe I am not familiar with those men and women who would not vote for a woman, but sadly I am familiar with those men and women who will not vote for an African American.

Maybe misogyny played a part in Mrs. Clinton’s defeat, but both she and Mr. Obama were fighting odds of historic proportion. I do not know who had the harder fight; my gut tells me that racism is more ingrained in our national psyche than is sexism- although I acknowledge both are at play. I think Mrs. Clinton’s campaign itself defeated Mrs. Clinton. She was running as an insider at a time of change and she had no game plan past Super Tuesday. There was an air of inevitability to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign since before she announced her candidacy. A year ago everyone was talking about a Clinton / Giuliani race. I truly believe that hubris is the tragic flaw for all humanity and I feel that the inevitability that was part of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign that assumed a coronation was indeed hubris.

I understand the desire among women to have a woman president, as a gay man I wish a gay man or lesbian could someday be president- but I know that my dream will never get as far as Mrs. Clinton got and that is truly sad and unfair.

With all of the election fever and the pace of 24 hour news, we often lose the ability to sit back and reflect. Amidst all of the speculation of Hillary Clinton’s next move, who will be the Vice President and the punditry examining electoral maps for the general election and the negative prognostications coming from the parsing of polls done in the heat and passion of the Democratic primary and its immediate (24-48 hour) aftermath history was made. Not just political history but cultural history and world history. I was fortunate enough to be in Washington DC the evening of the Potomac primaries- a significant evening for Mr. Obama and I was in Washington DC again when Mr. Obama clinched the nomination of his party. The energy in the nation’s capitol was palpable.

Senator Obama becoming the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party is a moment worthy of reflection- it is indeed a profound moment.

Barack Obama walked onto a stage in Minnesota on Tuesday night and stepped into the pages of American history and said “Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another”, he said, “a journey that will bring a new and better day to America.

“Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.”

Now, put this moment into the context of the broad sweep of the American story, where race has always been one of the central factors.

Nearly 400 years ago, a human cargo of men and women from what is now the African nation of Angola were brought in chains from an English ship to the colony of Jamestown on the Virginia coast.
In the centuries that followed, the uncompensated labour of hundreds of thousands of slaves built up America’s wealth, as well as creating vast fortunes for English, French and Dutch slave traders.
The white stone US Capitol building, a national symbol, was built in part by slave labour.
Later, the US fought the most bitter, bloody and most destructive war in its history in order to preserve the Union and eradicate the evil of slavery.

But the decades that followed President Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves were harsh and full of repression, racism and violence.

The civil rights movement that began in the 1950s wrote one of the greatest hapters in the American story.

And now this: A black man is the nominee of a major American party to lead its battle for the White House.

It will force a lot of people here and across the globe to reassess their idea of America.

But still it is larger than all of that. On Tuesday evening Senator Barack Obama became the first man of African descent in any Western nation to entertain the possibility of presiding over its government-including Australia, Canada, and any European nation- and the world is taking notice.

Across the globe, pundits and politicians of all stripes competed for hyperbole on Wednesday to applaud Senator Barack Obama’s claim of victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, almost as if he had already been elected to the White House.

His triumph in the primaries, many said, signaled the defeat of racism, and if Senator Obama became president, his election would presage a departure from what outsiders have broadly depicted as the go-it-alone belligerence of the Bush era.

That anticipatory exuberance cut across party lines. Just in France, Ségolène Royal, President Nicolas Sarkozy’s Socialist rival in last year’s French presidential election, said in a telephone interview that Mr. Obama “embodies the America of today and tomorrow.”

Equally enthusiastically, Patrick Devedjian, the head of President Sarkozy’s center-right political party, called Mr. Obama’s candidacy ‘’a very beautiful image of America, the image of a candidate who transcends race and got to where he is because of merit alone.” And Bertrand Delanoë, the mayor of Paris, declared: “His candidacy carries an enormous hope for his country and for peace in the world.”

The banner headline across The Kenya Times on Wednesday seemed to say it all, “Obama makes history, beats odds.”

A day after Senator Barack Obama secured the Democratic presidential nomination, villagers in his father’s hometown shouted traditional songs and praised God for the outsized success of a “village son.”

Here in the capital, office workers turned their attentions to the radio and television stations that constantly replayed Mr. Obama’s victory speech. Unemployed men in the slums toasted the moment with a popular brand of beer, Senator Keg lager, that Kenyans have renamed “Obama.”

Beneath the sense of joy was cautious optimism. Despite the milestone reached by Mr. Obama, whose father was Kenyan, many Kenyans say that Republicans in the United States remain powerful, well financed and difficult to beat and that Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has the inexorable advantage of being a white candidate in a largely white nation.

“It’s still too early to celebrate,” Joyce Nkuubi, 45, a florist, said. “He has some more work to do if he’s to defeat McCain.”
The day was certainly not as jubilant as it was when Mr. Obama visited Kenya in 2006 in an orchestrated four-country African tour to raise awareness of AIDS and connect with his roots. Thousands of people lined the streets of Nairobi to catch a glimpse of him, waiting hours in the sun.

But in the west, in Nyangoma-Kogelo, a collection of tin-roofed shacks and rutted dirt roads with little electricity or running water, a celebration occurred without him. Scores of villagers flocked to the home of Sarah Obama, his step-grandmother, to dance in the family compound and pray.

“Everybody there is full of excitement,” Barack Karama, a journalist in western Kenya, said. “There are many journalists, as well as people who are streaming in and out to offer congratulatory messages to the grandmother.”

Ms. Obama said she had predicted the victory, Mr. Karama said.
Many residents of Nyangoma-Kogelo are subsistence farmers, and Mr. Obama has come to represent pride and hope for them.

Because of his celebrity, the village has become something of a focal point, with journalists of many stripes putting up at a nearby port, Kisumu.
“I have spent the whole day here in Kisumu talking with journalists,” said Said Obama, an uncle of the senator.

Many Kenyans seemed to have few expectations that Mr. Obama, if elected president, would suddenly steer American policies to their advantage. But they saw significant, if sometimes indirect benefits.

“Since Obama has his roots in Kenya, it is obvious that Kenya and Africa will receive a lot of international attention,” Maurice Ogola, 31, computer technician, said. “That international limelight on Kenya and Africa is very good.

“We need much foreign aid, we need a lot of help to boost our economic growth, and that can come from a new America. Obama has a lot of potential to bring the much needed change.”

Kwabena Sam-Brew, a 38-year-old immigrant from Ghana, doubted that Nana, his 5-year-old American-born daughter, would remember the rally that effectively crowned Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee Tuesday night.

But Mr. Sam-Brew said he would describe it to her: “I will tell her, ‘Tonight is the night that all Americans became one.’ ”

Mr. Sam-Brew, a bus driver living in Cottage Grove, Minn., said Mr. Obama’s achievement would change the nation’s image around the world, and change the mind-set of Americans, too.
“We as black people now have hope that we have never, ever had,” Mr. Sam-Brew said. “I have new goals for my little girl. She can’t give me any excuses because she’s black.”
In his remarks Tuesday, Mr. Obama did not mention becoming the first American of color with a real chance at being president of the United States, and, of course, most of the Democrats who had voted for him were white. But for that very reason, many African-Americans exulted Wednesday in a political triumph that they believed they would never live to see. Many expressed hope that their children would draw strength from the moment.

“Not that we’re so distraught, but our children need to be able to see a black adult as a leader for the country, so they can know we can reach for those same goals,” said Wilhelmina Brown, 54, an account representative for U.S. Bank in St. Paul. “We don’t need to give up at a certain level.”

Alison Kane, a white 34-year-old transportation analyst from Edina, Minn., said Mr. Obama’s success as a biracial politician would have a similar effect on her 21-month-old biracial daughter, Hawa.

“When she’s out in, God knows where, some small town in rural America, they’ll think, ‘Oh, I know someone like you. Our president is like you,’ ” Ms. Kane said. “That just opens minds for people, to have someone to relate to. And that makes me feel better, as a mom.”

But pride — in Mr. Obama and in white voters who had looked beyond race, in the view of many blacks — was tempered for many African-Americans by an unsettling concern. There remains a fear that race, which loomed large in some primaries and has previously been successfully employed as a political wedge by Republicans, might yet keep Mr. Obama from capturing the White House.

“People hate black people,” said Michella Minter, a black 21-year-old student in Huntington, W.Va., referring to persistent racism in the United States.

“I’m not trying to be racist or over the top but it is seriously apparent that black people aren’t valued in this country,” Ms. Minter said. “In the last 12 months, six kids were being tried for attempted murder for a school fight, an unarmed man got 51 bullets in his body by a New York police officer, died, and no one was charged, and endless other racist unknown acts have occurred this year.” (In fact, three New York City detectives were charged in the shooting of Sean Bell, killed in a hail of police bullets on his wedding day in 2006, and were acquitted.)

Mr. Obama’s moment seemed to unite blacks across the political spectrum, even those who had no intention of voting for a Democrat for president.

For example, Ward Connerly, a conservative anti-affirmative-action crusader and chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, watched a replay of the announcement of Mr. Obama’s victory on Fox News early Wednesday “and I choked up,” he said. “He did it by his own achievement. Nobody gave it to him.” Mr. Connerly expressed hope that Mr. Obama’s rise would boost his own efforts to end affirmative action.
“The entire argument for race preferences is that society is institutionally racist and institutionally sexist, and you need affirmative action to level the playing field,” Mr. Connerly said. “The historic success of Senator Obama, as well as Senator Clinton, dismantles that argument.”

Mr. Obama has said that affirmative-action programs should become “a diminishing tool” in achieving racial equality, and has asked blacks to understand why such programs might engender resentment among whites, suggesting that poor white children also need a boost. Although he did not cast his victory in racial terms on Tuesday, he acknowledged on Wednesday that it might be having an effect on other African-Americans.

“Probably the most powerful story I heard was today at a conference, a woman came up to me,” he said in an interview on NBC News. “She said her son teaches in an inner-city school in San Francisco and said that he has seen a change in behavior among the young African-American boys there in terms of how they think about their studies. And, you know, so those are the kinds of things that I think make you appreciate that it’s not about you as an individual. But it’s about our country and the progress we’ve made.”
Thus far, Mr. Obama’s appeal has extended across racial lines, though to win in November he must do better in gaining the votes of white women and white working-class voters, whom he lost in Appalachia.

Yet on Tuesday, Ann Robb, a 61-year-old white school teacher from Terra Alta, W.Va. said he had won her support.

“I would’ve supported Hillary Clinton but something about Obama makes me believe again,” Ms. Robb said. That spirit, however long it lasts, already has left some African-Americans more optimistic than they have ever been about race relations in America.
“You can never change everybody’s minds, but it is going to help a lot,” said Mr. Sam-Brew, the bus driver, referring to Mr. Obama’s victory and the enduring resistance among some white voters to black leaders.

In Harlem on Wednesday, Hector Garcia, an African-American who manages Pee Dee Steak II, a restaurant on 125th Street, said the symbolism of Mr. Obama’s victory had not sunk in until he headed to work in the morning, when he saw the excitement it had produced.

The driver of an M102 bus chatted about it with a passenger. The owner of a hair salon and eyeglass store stopped Mr. Garcia on the sidewalk. And his customers were buzzing about it over their $6.99 steak.

“A lot of people think things will be different for the black community now,” said Mr. Garcia, 48, who supported Mrs. Clinton and has a photo of her on his wall. “It’s great.”
Ronald Jeffers, who gets a good beat on Harlem’s pulse handing out fliers under the marquee of the Apollo Theater, said he heard passers-by buzzing about Mr. Obama’s victory.

“I think it’s a monumental step,” said Mr. Jeffers, 55, who said he had been friends with Malcolm X and other leaders. The nomination is especially significant for Harlem’s children, he said, because “if they see this, they will think it’s something they can do.”
“Otherwise,” Mr. Jeffers said, “they look up to rappers.”

Jackie Almond, who cuts hair at the Pizazz Salon and Spa on Lenox Avenue in Harlem, said she was on the phone when she learned of the victory and broke into screams.
“I was like, ‘aaaahhhh,’ ” she said. “Never in a million years would I have thought this was possible.”

I agree with Mr. Almond. I never would have thought this possible in a million years. But here we are. We are indeed living at a pivotal moment in history. I hope we both reflect on its magnitude and seize its potential.

In February 2008, Senator Barack Obama wrote an “Open Letter to the LGBT Community”. Penned weeks before the Senator’s historic speech on race, the open letter is as eloquent and nuanced as that speech and he thoughtfully addresses the issues of discrimination faced by LGBT Americans as he did with the issue of the racial divide in America. Senator Obama doesn’t just offer platitudinal promises to the LGBT community, but talks honestly about the uphill battle it will take to achieve equal rights- how difficult it could be to change the hearts and minds of many Americans.

He also addresses with remarkable understanding how stigma often tied to homophobia is a factor that must be addressed in order to steam the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

There is little I can add to the reason why the LGBT community should support Senator Obama than to quote the eloquence of the Senator’s own words as written in his letter to the LGBT Community.

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.

In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention.

I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.

To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

I think the wheels have come off the “Straight Talk Express”. Senator John McCain has conveniently, and for political purposes begun pandering to the right wing of the Republican party with a vengeance- flip flopping on a number of issues- just to appease the radical right wing nut bags. It’s a sad way for a career marked by integrity and conviction to end. By giving up his ethical and moral standards- guiding principles for him during his military and much of his public service career- in order to get a Presidential nomination- is antithetical to what could have been a remarkable legacy. Instead this hero is turning into a panderer and a colossal joke. He has traded his soul for power. It is truly a Faustian story that would make Mephistopheles proud.

Senator John McCain is a bona finde war hero. On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying as part of a 20-plane attack against a thermal power plant in central Hanoi, a heavily defended target area that had previously been off-limits to U.S. raids. McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile while pulling up after dropping its bombs. McCain fractured both arms and a leg in being hit and ejecting from his plane. He nearly drowned after he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around, spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothes. Others crushed his shoulder with the butt of a rifle and bayoneted him in his left foot and abdominal area; he was then transported to Hanoi’s main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by American POWs. Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to give him medical care unless he gave them military information; they beat and interrogated him, but McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. Soon thinking he was near death, McCain said he would give them information if taken to the hospital, hoping he could then put them off once he was treated. A prison doctor came and said it was too late, as McCain was about to die anyway. Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care and announce his capture. At this point, two days after McCain’s plane went down, that event and his status as a POW made the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

McCain spent six weeks in the Hoa Loa hospital, receiving marginal care.  He was interviewed by a French television reporter whose report was carried on CBS, and was observed by a variety of North Vietnamese, including the famous General Vo Nguyen Giap. Many of the North Vietnamese observers assumed that he must be part of America’s political-military-economic elite.  Now having lost 50 pounds, in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white, McCain was sent to a prisoner-of-war camp on the outskirts of Hanoi nicknamed “the Plantation” in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week (one was Bud Day, a future Medal of Honor recipient); they nursed McCain and kept him alive. In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years. In July 1968, McCain’s father was named Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC), stationed in Honolulu and commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.  McCain was immediately offered a chance to return home early:  the North Vietnamese wanted a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.  McCain turned down the offer of repatriation, due to the Code of Conduct principle of “first in, first out”: he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.  McCain’s refusal to be released was even remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Le Duc Tho to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.

In August of 1968, a program of vigorous torture methods began on McCain, using rope bindings into painful positions, and beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. Teeth and bones were broken again, as was McCain’s spirit; the beginning of a suicide attempt was stopped by guards. After four days of this, McCain signed an anti-American propaganda “confession” that said he was a “black criminal” and an “air pirate”, although he used stilted Communist jargon and ungrammatical language to signal that the statement was forced.He felt then and always that he had dishonored his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement, but as he would later write, “I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.” His injuries to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head. Two weeks later his captors tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time, his will to resist restored, he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal. Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract “confessions”. On one occasion when McCain was physically coerced to give the names of members of his squadron, he supplied them the names of the Green Bay Packers’ offensive line.

Mr. McCain’s Viet Nam story is one of commitment to one’s ideals; it is an inspirational story of amazing selflessness and integrtity.

In the past he has exhibited that integrity and courage as a Senator too- speaking out on a number of issues which insensed the right wing of the Republican party.

When Congress was debating a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, Mr. McCain said “The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans,” McCain said. “It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.”

In 1999, John McCain said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be dangerous for women and he would not support it, even in “the long term.” Here’s McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle: “I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations”

McCain had been unequivocal in his condemnation of torture, and eloquent in expressing why. “We’ve sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists,” he said at an Oval Office appearance in December 2005, after he had forced the president to endorse an earlier torture ban McCain had authored and pushed through (a ban the president quickly subverted with a signing statement). “What we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror.”
He made a similar case on the campaign trail in Iowa in October 2007: “When I was imprisoned, I took heart from the fact that I knew my North Vietnamese captors would never be treated like I was treated by them. There are much better and more effective ways to get information. You torture someone long enough, he’ll tell you whatever he thinks you want to know.”

Senator McCain voted twice against the Bush tax cuts saying that it is irresponsible to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans during a time when we are conducting a war.

But Mr. McCain has reversed all of these positions recently in a mad dash to the right in the most blatant pandering in recent memory just so he can be the Republican nominee for President

On the issue of gay marriage- he’s now on the side of the folks who would like to see our “laws” be subservient to “God’s laws”- whose God and what laws- remains a mystery

Now John McCain says he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and would appoint

Now he seems to be just fine with torture. Taking to the Senate floor to justify his vote against the torture ban on February 14th, McCain twisted himself in knots trying to explain how he could sponsor a bill — the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act — that prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment by the military while voting against a bill that would extend that ban to the CIA and other intelligence agencies: “It is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to [detain and interrogate terrorists]. At the same time the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.” In other words, the CIA has to abide by rules prohibiting torture but we can’t tie the CIA’s hands by making it abide by rules prohibiting torture.

And of course he has made it a campaign promise to make the “Bush tax cuts” permanent regardless of the burden it causes as he vows to continue operations in Iraq.

I feel badly for Senator McCain. He has irreparably tarnished his integrity and his character for power. That is profoundly sad and I see it as a modern version of a Greek tragic myth. How sad to see someone give up honor for power.

Let’s face it – the Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach SC had all the hallmarks of a school yard fight. No matter you spin it- Mr. Obama is up against one slick machine and is boxed into a difficult situation.

During the campaign, Senator Obama attempted to rise above the political shenanigans that have been part and parcel of politics since the early 1990’s and in which both the Democratic and Republican parties have engaged. But President and Mrs. Clinton are determined to bring him into politics as usual. It is imperative for Mr. Obama to set the record straight and to call attention to the inaccuracies in statements about him by the President and Mrs. Clinton but in doing so he ends up looking like “just another politician”; an absolutely brilliant political strategy- pure Clinton.

President Clinton is brilliant about using words that give one impression while not technically “saying” it. Remember the famous “It depends on what your definition of is, is”? He admitted as much today when he boasted that he knows how to parse his words and that he has said nothing that is technically inaccurate. That’s true, but everyone with half a brain knows that perception is everything and truth tends to often be an afterthought in politics.

I voted for President Clinton twice and campaigned vigorously for him in the 1992 campaign and overall I was happy with his presidency. He seems to have amnesia about his role in welfare reform and the fact that he was dismally unsuccessful in his attempt at healthcare reform and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, but he did preside over a good economy and brought down the deficit. I guess folks might say that he was the very model of a model major “Reaganite”- dismantling welfare and focusing on the economy.   But that’s a subject for another time.

One can politically dissect everything said and make a case on either Mr. Obama’s or Mrs. Clinton’s side. But Mr. Obama made a big mistake when he attacked Mrs. Clinton about her membership on the Wal-Mart board. He played right into the Clintons hands and opened himself up for a one two punch. He should not have gone there. Remember the Clintons are rather adept politicians and he gave Mrs. Clinton the perfect opening to drudge up Mr. Obama’s relationship with Resco which he had addressed years ago and admitted regret. Mr. Obama’s record working on behalf of inner city poor as a community organizer in Chicago is indisputable and although Mr. Obama gave Mrs. Clinton an opening that would make any astute politician salivate, it was patently unfair to portray Mr. Obama as more attuned to a Chicago “slum” lord than to the inner city poor he worked with every day as a community organizer even if her statement was technically not untrue.

Mr. Obama did make a point that sometimes he doesn’t know if he is running against Bill or Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton responded that both of them have spouses who are zealous advocates for their respective campaigns. Technically again- Mrs. Clinton is correct. However, Michelle Obama has not engaged in the sort of politics in which President Clinton has engaged and even if she had, there is a huge difference; she is not a former President. President Clinton has uses his bully pulpit as a former President to be Senator Clinton’s pit bull. His status as a former President gives him a unique platform. A number of Democratic bigwigs have asked the former President to dial it down, but it doesn’t look like he has any plans on doing so anytime soon.

I hate to say something favorable about the Bushes, but former President George H.W. Bush stayed out of the attacks during his son’s presidential campaign against Senator John McCain in 2000. It is rather frustrating when the media give President Clinton a free ride about his role in his wife’s campaign when they say it is a unique campaign because we are charting new territory when a former President is the spouse of a presidential candidate. Well maybe technically, but wouldn’t the relationship between a former President who is the father of a presidential candidate be pretty similar and therefore not completely uncharted territory.

Mr. Clinton is not acting like a senior statesman and as someone who has defended Clinton zealously to anti-Clinton friends and relatives I am embarrassed by his actions. Not only is this not an appropriate role for a former president and senior statesman but it might make some – especially in the “I hate the Clinton” crowd make a fair case that Hillary’s candidacy is actually a 3rd term for Bill. His actions have made him look like he wants to get back to the White House too much and it gives easy fodder for the Republicans in the general election should Mrs. Clinton be the Democratic nominee.

In it’s endorsement of Senator Obama, Columbia South Carolina’s prestigious newspaper “The State” said:

“The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency - and how the nation might respond.

Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.

But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

Senator Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.”

The only person who came out of the Democratic debate in South Carolina unsullied was Senator Edwards- the candidate I originally supported. I changed my support from Senator Edwards to Senator Obama precisely because I felt Senator Obama could move us out of politics as usual- the same reason he won the endorsement of “The State”.  I still believe that he can take us there and that he can be the transformational leader that the nation needs. I believe that Mr. Obama can create a coalition of Democrats, Independents and “Obama” Republicans the way President Reagan did for the Republicans with his “Reagan Democrats” and appeal to Independents.

Mr. Obama has been pulled into a school yard spat by the Clintons but he must return to his message of hope, unity and transformation and stop being pulled into politics as usual no matter how adept his opponent and her former-President husband are at enticing him into it. Mr. Obama must find a way to return to the audacity of hope and not engage the mendacity of politics that have been too much the norm over the past decades.

Over the past few months I have made reference to Mr. Huckabee as being a man with whom I have fundamental differences, but whom I respect for a sense of integrity and his fair spirit when it comes to issues on immigration and poverty. I never ever would vote for the man or even give it a passing fancy- but I can admire people with whom I fundamentally differ as long as we can respectfully agree to disagree and if there is a mutual respect for the rule of law.

All those nice things that I said about Mike Huckabee- I take it all back.

This man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is a dangerous man. Sure I knew that he was anti-choice and was against gay marriage- but he isn’t the only one and it seemed to me that he had the sort of spirit that although he fundamentally disagreed with these issues, he understood the distinction between religion and civil law. He seemed to say some of the right things to make me feel less concerned about his religious zealotry.

I thought that he said just the right thing in response to the Baptist canon that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband,” and “serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.” Many Southern Baptists understand that to mean that just men are meant to occupy certain leadership roles like church pastor. But in a debate last week in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Mr. Huckabee said the position required no subordination at all. It meant, he said, both husbands and wives “mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.” “Biblically,” he added, “marriage is a 100-100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other.” Maybe he wasn’t a literalist when it came to the interpretation of the Bible like so many others of the Christian radical right. I guess I forgot that he raised his hand when Wolf Blitzer asked the Republican candidates in one of those CNN sham debates about Evolution and divulged he is one of those Creationists.

Of course what made me see Mr. Huckabee’s true colors was his comments about the Constitution. Speaking to a not-particularly religious crowd near Detroit on Monday, before the Michigan primary, he slipped into an argument to amend the Constitution to ban abortion and same-sex marriage, “so it’s in God’s standards, rather than try to change God’s standards.” SAY WHAT?

Does the smiling guy with the dimples who charms the pants off of people with his folksy charm and who has said all the right things to assuage the concerns that a Baptist preacher would be in the position to affect secular policy really have an nefarious Christian agenda? I guess so. It sounds to me eerily like Mr. Huckabee is interested in seeing the United States as a theocracy.

Sure these statements are Republican red meat and were about abortion rights and gay marriage. But his remarks are troubling on so many levels.

First- I don’t understand how any fair-minded “Christian” person, even if they fundamentally disagree with choice and gay marriage, could consider writing limitations to rights and liberties into our constitution. Amending our constitution to limit rights and liberties is antithetical to what we believe that document inherently protects.

Second is just the idea that secular law has to line up with someone’s definition of God’s law. Who is the arbiter of what Biblical laws should be the model for our Constitution.

Are we talking about the fundamental laws of the Bible- the Ten Commandments? If so, neither abortion nor gay marriage is relevant.

Remember those Commandments?
1: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.
2: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
3: ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5: ‘Honor your father and your mother.
6: ‘You shall not murder.
7: ‘You shall not commit adultery.
8: ‘You shall not steal.
9: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
10: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.

Well I guess we should take the rights away of our citizens who commit adultery? Well I guess that would take out most of the Christian right. They seem famous for their sleazy sex scandal. I guess we should take away the rights of children who do not honor their parents who beat and abuse them. I guess any Buddhist or Hindu or any person not from the Islamic-Judaic-Christian tradition (Never forget that these three religions are tied to one another and all can trace their beginnings to Abraham) would lose their rights. I also think that this country seems to conveniently forget the relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

Slavery is just fine in the Bible. A father has the right to sell his daughter into slavery. Exodus 21:7 states, “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. Even Jefferson Davis hid behind the Bible when defending slavery for the Confederacy. “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts,” said Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

Here’s a little gem from Deuteronomy 21-24: Then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house , and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house ; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. If a man is found lying with a married woman , then both of them shall die , the man who lay with the woman , and the woman ; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel . If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man , and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death ; the girl , because she did not cry out in the city , and the man , because he has violated his neighbor’s wife . Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

So in fact what Biblical laws are the ones that our Constitution need to reflect? As a gay man I have always found the Biblical arguments against homosexuality rather specious and very selective. If you truly believe that the Bible is God’s law and everything in it should be taken literally. Why are these other issues that are considered heinous- slavery and killing young girls who are not virgins- in contemporary society conveniently forgotten but the two or three references to homosexuality are hauled out of the morality chest when discussing gay issues?

Biblical interpretation- even among the most ardent literalist- is always conveniently weighted to their own specific prejudices and agendas. The Old Testament – the testament that defined most Biblical laws was written thousands of years ago for nomadic tribes living in the desert- not for the contemporary world.

So Mr. Huckabee’s desire to see the Constitution line up with God’s law is again one of those great hypocrisies that feed into hate and prejudice that conveniently extracts portions of the Bible as the final word on an issue. I had thought that Mr. Huckabee’s views were more those of Jesus- love, tolerance and charity and less about the draconian and millennially outdated laws of a nomadic people wandering through the desert.

Sadly I was wrong- Mr. Huckabee is just another one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing. More dangerous than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell because he is so folksy and “appealing” in his “shucks I’m just a guy” sort of way that hides that evil prejudice and he can make many people, including myself, think that he was a Christian in the model of Jesus, not in the model of Falwell and Robertson. That is scary!

Please note- my more recent post:  Why I voted for Senator Barak Obama

I am endorsing former John Edwards for President. For months I have been in a quandary about who I wanted to support for President. I think any one of the three leading Democrats- Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards- would be acceptable. There are things to like about all of them and things that are somewhat problematic but they are all smart, committed public servants. My endorsement of John Edwards has to do with a mix of his stance on issues and some of the problems I have with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. At the outset, I think that any one of the three would make a good President; I just think that Mr. Edwards would make a better one.

Why not a Republican?
Why not endorse a Republican? The obvious reason is that I am a Democrat, but I would cross party lines if there was someone who resonated with me. Congressman Ron Paul appeals to many Independents because of his stance on the war in Iraq. I agree with his stance on the war in Iraq, but his über Libertarian views would ultimately decimate any safety net for the poor in this country and that is unacceptable to me.

The rest of the Republicans are parroting the Bush doctrine – which shocks me, nevertheless they are. Former New York City Rudolph Giuliani seemed like a social moderate/liberal. He seemed pro-choice, pro-gay rights (after all he relied on the kindness of a gay couple and lived with them when he was going through his last divorce), and anti-gun (although he has pandered to the NRA too). Giuliani always had ego and hubris, but it has simply gone amok. He has capitalized on the tragedy of 9/11 both politically and financially (through his consulting firm) that I find him immoral. That immorality was completed when he welcomed an endorsement from Pat Robertson. Doesn’t he remember Robertson and Falwell waxing philosophic about the cause of 9/11 being the gays, lesbians, pro-choice Americans and the ACLU? Rudy is just a reprehensible hypocrite who plays fear almost as good as, if not better than, President Bush.

The other front running candidate- Mitt Romney is just a hack. He has no moral compass and will say anything and promote any policy if he thinks it will get him elected. He rails about Senator Clinton’s health care plan- but it is eerily like the one he signed into law when he was Governor of Massachusetts.  He courted the gay community when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts and now he villifies us.

Both Romney and Giuliani talk about their management skills and how Senator Clinton, in particular, and Senators Obama and Edwards have never run a city, state or business. Remember the last MBA President we had— or should I say have? George W. Bush, has a  Harvard M.B.A. (do you think Poppy had anything to do with his getting into either Yale or Harvard? But I digress) and is a former Governor of Texas. How’s that workin’ for the country? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

The only one in the ragtag crew of Republicans that I admire is Mike Huckabee because he has integrity and seems to have a sense of social justice. However his view about gays and lesbians is something I just would never be able to reconcile.

Why not Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton?
As I stated either of them would make a good President; I just think that Mr. Edwards would be better.

Mr. Obama shows a lack of experience and reticence that makes me a little nervous. I don’t know if he has the gravitas to be President right now. He brings a fresh face to politics, but I haven’t really seen a lot of substance behind the rhetoric. I think that 8 years from now he would be an awesome candidate. I just don’t think he is quite ready yet. But I will reiterate that I think he is a better choice than any of the candidates in the other party.

Mrs. Clinton is brilliant. She is disciplined and would also make an excellent President. I was actually leaning towards Mrs. Clinton for months. I feel that at the moment the gridlock that is Washington would not change. It might if Congress overwhelmingly had a Democratic majority, but barring that- Mrs. Clinton is viewed as too partisan. I think it is an unfair characterization because she has proved as a Senator from New York that she can work very well across the aisle. But in the Presidency- it is policy and leadership. Leadership is a mix of reality and perception and in the perception arena- Mrs. Clinton has some problems. If she becomes the nominee- I will vigorously support her, but I think that Mr. Edwards is running a campaign about change and I believe him. I also thinks that he embodies – more than the other two- my values and is a true defender of those that have no voice in our society.

The case for John Edwards

On every issue that matters to me, Mr. Edwards makes compelling arguements and has sound policy positions. While this may seem tedious, I want to address each issue and Mr. Edwards’ way of addressing each one.

Iraq

There is no military solution to the chaos in Iraq. Instead, the Iraqi people must solve the problem politically by taking responsibility for their country. By leaving Iraq, America will prompt the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community to find the political solution that will end the sectarian violence and create a stable Iraq. We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months. We should leave behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers.

We can only achieve these steps through legislative action. Edwards strongly supports the supplemental spending bill passed by both Houses of Congress and vetoed by President Bush that funds the troops with a timetable for withdrawal. He has called for Congress to respond to the President’s veto by sending back the same bill—and doing this as many times as it takes for the President to end the war. Edwards supports the following specific steps:

• Stop the Escalation and Immediately Start the Drawdown
  Edwards opposed President Bush’s “surge” and supports immediately drawing down 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops.
• Require Troops to be Ready
  We should prohibit funding for any new troops that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped. American tax dollars should be used to train and equip our troops, not to escalate the war.
• Clarify the Lack of Legal Foundation for the War
  The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. Edwards believes that Congress should make it clear that President Bush exceeded his authority long ago. The president now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
• Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months
  Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.
• Take Additional Steps to Stabilize Iraq
  Edwards believes we should intensify U.S. efforts to train the Iraqi security forces. He would also step up U.S. diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria, to bring a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through a peace conference.

Iran

John Edwards believes it is of the utmost importance that we prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a politically unstable leader and an open supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in an unstable region in the world, which would directly threaten US interests. As president, Edwards would take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies.

• Uniting the International Community
  We must do everything in our power to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomatic measures that will, over time, force Iran to finally understand the world community will not allow it to possess nuclear weapons. Every major U.S. ally agrees a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. This is a positive sign, and we should continue to work with them to isolate Iran.
• Directly Engaging Iran
  We need to engage Iran directly. As president, Edwards will negotiate with Iranian leaders who have met a number of criteria, such as recognition of the international rule of law, recognition of the rights of Jews and the state of Israel, and a commitment to the promise of diplomacy.
• Marginalizing Extremists
  Thousands of young and moderate Iranians are natural friends of America and the West and want to see Iran succeed economically. Edwards will take steps to expose Iran to democratic culture and ideas and will use diplomacy to separate extremists from leaders more inclined to stabilize Iran’s relations with the world.
• Leverage through Increased Pressure
  Stabilizing Iran will require the use of both “carrots” and “sticks”—pressure and incentives. While the sanctions already in place provide some leverage over Iran, they have had limited success. As president, Edwards will pursue a new course of targeted sanctions both for American companies and for foreign companies.
• Encouragement through Incentives
  The United States has more leverage than many think over Iran through incentives that could encourage Iran’s leadership to abandon extremism and comply with international rules. As president, Edwards will draw Iran into compliance through incentives including increased refinery capacity, modification of the embargo, membership in multilateral organizations, and the creation of a fuel bank.
• Direct Negotiations with China and Russia
  China and Russia both recently voted with the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. As president, Edwards will reach out to China and Russia to work on reaching their economic objectives through alternatives that do not assist Iran’s military nuclear capability.

HIV/AIDS

John Edwards was the first presidential candidate – Democratic or Republican – to take on the big insurance and drug companies and propose a plan for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America that offers everyone the option of a public plan. Today, John Edwards builds on his plan for true universal health care with specific proposals to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS at home and around the world. He will include a comprehensive new national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, including:
• Guaranteeing health insurance for every American – including HIV/AIDS patients — the care they need when they need it and expanding Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals before they reach later stages of disabilities and AIDS.
• Fighting the disease in the African American and Latino communities, where the harm is now greatest.
• Calling for universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine across the world, investing $50 billion over five years to meet that goal.
• Changing the policies that protect big drug companies, at the expense of people dying of HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

• Fighting HIV/AIDS At Home
  HIV/AIDS is still a crisis in America, particularly in African-American and Latino communities. The number of new HIV infections in the U.S. has not fallen in 15 years. As president, Edwards will help end the HIV/AIDS epidemic in America. [CDC, 2005]
• Guaranteeing Treatment for Everyone with True Universal Health Care by 2012
  People with HIV/AIDS who don’t have health insurance or who have inadequate insurance are significantly more likely to die from the disease. That’s the tragedy of the two health care systems in this country today – one for people who can afford the very best care and one for everyone else. True universal health care must be the foundation for a national HIV/AIDS strategy. Edwards’ plan will ensure every person in America living with HIV/AIDS gets the care they need, when they need it. His plan will also transform chronic care with a new patient-centered “medical home” approach where a primary care physician will make sure patients are getting effective treatment from a coordinated team, including palliative care. [Bhattacharya, 2003]  Edwards supports the Early Treatment for HIV Act which will expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals in every state before they reach later stages of disability and AIDS. Currently, in most states, individuals must receive an AIDS diagnosis to receive services under Medicaid even though research shows that the sooner individuals living with HIV receive treatment the better the outcomes. [Porco et al., 2004]
• Creating a National HIV/AIDS Strategy
  In 2001, the CDC set a national goal of reducing the annual number of new infections in half by 2005, but the actual number of infections has barely budged. A 1998 presidential initiative set a goal of eliminating racial disparities in HIV/AIDS by 2010, but disparities are as bad today as they were then. Our disappointments can be explained in part by the failure to create a national strategy, backed by necessary funding and with clear and bold goals, specific action steps, real accountability and broad participation and buy-in from stakeholders both inside and outside of government. As president, Edwards will develop a National HIV/AIDS Strategy through an honest, comprehensive and fast-tracked process that involves stakeholders from the public and nonprofit sectors. The National Strategy will coordinate the various agencies within and outside of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that affect HIV/AIDS policy. He will hold his HHS Secretary accountable for issuing an annual report on HIV/AIDS that charts progress towards our national goals, and he will appoint a strong director of the White House office of AIDS Policy to keep these issues visible at the highest levels of government. [CDC, 1999, 2001, 2007; HHS, 1998]
• Focusing on Disparities
  About two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS cases are diagnosed in African Americans and Latinos. African Americans are infected at nearly 10 times the rate, and Latinos at more than three times the rate, of white Americans. A 2005 study of African-American men who have sex with men in selected cities found that almost half are infected with HIV, and 67 percent do not know they have the disease. Latina women are six times more likely than white women to have HIV/AIDS. Any serious effort to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic must begin in the African-American and Latino communities, including among the incarcerated population, and address their prevention and treatment needs. We must also continue to work intensively with important overlapping groups like gay men. [CDC, 2007; KFF, 2007]
• Supporting Ryan White CARE Act Programs and HOPWA
  Enacting true universal health care will ensure patients have access to care, but fully funding the Ryan White CARE Act will remain essential to ensure that culturally-competent care is available for the special needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. These programs include outpatient HIV early intervention services, support services like transportation, case management, substance abuse and mental health treatment, nutrition, family-centered care for children, access to clinical trials and delivery to hard-to-reach populations. Maintaining delivery of outreach and treatment services to the LGBT community, for example, is dependent on these programs. Edwards will also put an end to waiting lines for HIV drugs — for example, more than 300 people with HIV/AIDS are on a waiting list for medication in South Carolina – and increase funds for the Housing for People with AIDS (HOPWA) programs, only federal program that provides comprehensive, community-based housing for people with HIV/AIDS. [NASTAD, 2007]
• Preventing HIV/AIDS with Scientifically-Proven Strategies, Not Political Ideology
  The CDC has identified the three most reliable ways to prevent HIV/AIDS infections. Yet the Bush administration focuses on only one of them – abstinence. As president, Edwards will promotes all reliable prevention strategies, including comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education to ensure young people learn all the facts about preventing HIV/AIDS and harm-reduction programs that provide high-risk individuals with access to clean syringes. He will lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchange initiatives. In addition, Edwards will support community and public education that encourages testing. [CDC, Undated; Bush, 2005]
• Strengthening America’s Research Agenda
  It used to be that more than four out of 10 requests for National Institutes of Health grants were approved. Now less than two out of 10 are approved, and existing grants are being cut back. One of those rejected requests might have led to a breakthrough on HIV/AIDS treatments. Edwards supports substantial increases in funding for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, including for microbicides, as well as measures to ensure transparency in funding decisions, accountability for results and aligning research with outcomes. [NIH, 2007]
• Fighting HIV/AIDS Around The World
  While the Bush administration initially increased funding for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, funding has now flat-lined. We must do more, and do it better. The fight against HIV/AIDS is a fight for people’s lives, but President Bush’s way has us fighting with one hand tied behind our back. One-third of prevention funding goes to abstinence-only education that has been shown not to work. The U.S. has also refused to fund medicine approved by the World Health Organization, even though requiring FDA approval means the U.S. sometimes pays up to three times more for drugs. This means fewer people receive treatment, as the profits of drug companies are protected. [Goldberg, 2007; Carpenter, 2007; Love, 2007]  To restore our moral standing in the world, Edwards believes that America must be a global leader in the fight against poverty and disease. Fighting global poverty and addressing global health crises is a moral imperative, but it is also a security issue. As president, John Edwards will fundamentally transform America’s approach to the world and bring high-level attention to the fight against global HIV/AIDS by:

1. Providing Universal Access to Treatment Globally
   A $4 dose of medicine can help prevent a mother from transmitting HIV to her newborn at childbirth. In developing countries, HIV/AIDS medications cost as little as $140 per patient a year – but, by mid-2006, fewer than one in four people who needed it had access to treatment. As part of a comprehensive plan to also fight TB and malaria around the world, Edwards has set an ambitious goal of providing universal access to preventive and treatment drugs for the three “killer diseases” by 2010, investing $50 billion over five years to meet that goal. This includes fulfilling our moral responsibility to help strengthen public health systems and health care workforces in developing nations. While we can make current spending go further by being more aggressive with the pharmaceutical industry, Edwards will ensure the U.S. contributes its traditional fair share toward the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has proven itself as an innovative, effective model to fight disease. [UNICEF, 2005; U.N. Millennium Project, 2005; WHO, 2007]
2. Using Trade Policy to Save Lives
   Edwards will enact trade policies that save lives, rather than protect the profits of big drug companies. He will ensure that U.S. bilateral trade agreements respect the rights of countries to access and use generic medicines consistent with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. We must expand poor countries’ right to safe, affordable generic drugs to treat HIV/AIDS. The increased distribution of generic drugs has been a step in the right direction. However, as millions of people develop resistance to these drugs, we must be prepared to facilitate access to more effective medications. As president, Edwards will support efforts to increase the importation and production in developing countries of second-line and pediatric drugs. He will also re-assess the Bush policy that forces us to pay higher prices for drugs that have been approved by the FDA, when less expensive drugs have already been approved by the WHO and their safety is reliable. WHO safety standards are relied upon by leading international organizations, including the Global Fund.
3. Expanding the Role of Multilateral Organizations
   America’s reluctance to engage the world through multilateral organizations under President Bush has hurt our ability to combat poverty and fight HIV/AIDS. Edwards believes multilateral institutions like the Global Fund can be far more efficient at using taxpayer dollars than bilateral agencies like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, with far lower overheads. As president, Edwards will support efforts to increase the role of multilateral institutions like the Global Fund in distributing funds to fight HIV/AIDS, rather than just bilateral aid agencies and their contractors.
4. Rescinding the Global Gag Rule
   In 2001, President Bush signed an executive order barring U.S. family planning aid to foreign non-profits that offer abortions, except in the case of a threat to a woman’s life or incest, that provide abortion counseling or that lobby to make abortion legal. This “gag rule” stifles free speech and forces non-profits to choose between vital U.S. funds and providing essential health services. The “gag rule” has hurt efforts to ensure access to contraception methods that can prevent the spread of HIV. Edwards will overturn this order and restore support for effective family planning.
5. Creating a Cabinet-Level Post on Global Poverty
   Despite its importance to our national security and international standing, America still lacks a comprehensive strategy to fight global poverty. Our foreign aid programs are fractured and uncoordinated, delivered by over 50 separate government offices. As a result, bureaucrats fight over overlapping jurisdictions and resources are not tied to any government-wide priorities. As president, Edwards will create a new cabinet-level position that will coordinate global development policies across the federal government and be a voice for the fight against global HIV/AIDS.
6. Promoting Women’s Rights and Universal Education
   Strengthening the rights of women and increasing education will help change social roles that underlie the spread of HIV in many countries. Reducing violence against women and expanding education are both proven means of preventing HIV. Edwards will aggressively support political and economic rights for women where they do not exist and support efforts to reduce violence against women and children. He will also lead the world toward a primary education for every child, endorsing the goal of achieving universal basic education by 2015. As part of a significant increase in overall funding for poverty-focused development assistance, Edwards will lead a worldwide effort to raise $10 billion to fund this cause. [UNAIDS, 2005; World Bank, 2002]
7. Supporting Debt Cancellation
   Debt owed to Western lenders prevents many poor countries from making the kinds of investments in health and education that can help prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases. Edwards will take the next step on debt relief by eliminating bilateral debt owed to the United States by the world’s poorest countries, freeing up resources for these countries to invest in health and education. He will also call on other lender nations and agencies to follow our lead.

Gay and Lesbian Issues

Edwards believes that all couples in committed, long-term relationships should have the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples. He supports civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples. Edwards supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also believes same-sex families should be treated in the same manner as other families by our immigration laws. Edwards believes the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships and he opposes divisive Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages.

• Workplace Discrimination
  Workers should be judged by the quality of their performance, not their sexual orientation or gender identity. While in the Senate, Edwards cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He also believes that stronger enforcement is necessary to prevent employment discrimination by federal agencies.
• Military Service
  Edwards opposes the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gays and lesbians serving in our military. The military ought to treat all service members equally and in a way that promotes national security, without regard to their sexual orientation.
• Adoption
  Edwards believes that gay and lesbian parents should be able to adopt children just like any other parents. There are over 120,000 children waiting for homes in our nation’s foster care system. Adoption placements should be decided by judges and adoption agencies based upon the best interests of the children. Both members of a same-sex couple raising children together should be able to form a legal relationship with their children.
• Hate Crimes
  Everyone is entitled to live in dignity without fear of violence. We should strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity. While in the Senate, Edwards cosponsored legislation to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

Healthcare Reform

John Edwards has a bold plan to transform America’s health care system and provide universal health care for every man, woman and child in America.
Under the Edwards Plan:
• Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
• Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
• Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.
The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:
• Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
• Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
• Creating regional “Health Care Markets” to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
• Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.
Securing universal healthcare for every American will require the active involvement of millions of Americans

Poverty

In a speech at the National Press Club, Edwards called poverty “the great moral issue of our time” and challenged our country to cut it by a third in a decade and end it within 30 years. To get there, he has proposed major new initiatives to reward work, break up high-poverty neighborhoods, help families save, and encourage families to act responsibly. In his vision of a “Working Society,” everyone who is able to work will be expected to work and rewarded for working. Edwards also called on communities to discourage the reckless behavior that threatens the future of many young people.

 End Poverty by 2036- Edwards believes that ending poverty should be a goal our nation actively pursues. A national goal will rally support for the cause and help us measure our progress. In 1999, Tony Blair announced a 20-year goal to end child poverty in Great Britain and he has already reduced child poverty by 17 percent. Today, Edwards called for a national effort to:
• Cut poverty by one third within a decade, lifting 12 million Americans out of poverty by 2016.
• End poverty within 30 years, lifting 37 million Americans out of poverty by 2036. [Census Bureau, 2007]

Reform the Poverty Measure- The poverty measure excludes necessities like taxes, health care, child care and transportation. It also fails to count some forms of aid including tax credits, food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing. The National Academy of Science has recommended improvements that would increase the count of people in poverty by more than 1 million. Edwards believes we need to measure poverty honestly, evaluate our performance, and hold politicians accountable for policies that change the number of people suffering hardship. He supports revisions along the lines recommended by NAS. [Census Bureau, 2005; NAS, 1995]

Creating a Working Society
Edwards has outlined a Working Society initiative to lift 12 million Americans out of poverty in a decade and beat poverty over the next 30 years. In the Working Society, everyone who is able to work hard will be expected to work and, in turn, be rewarded for it. The initiative includes major new policies in the areas of work, housing, education, debt and savings, and family responsibility.

Rewarding Work:
• Make Work Pay: Edwards will increase the reward for working by raising the minimum wage to at least $9.50 an hour by 2012 and then indexing it, tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for adults without children and cutting the EITC marriage penalty. In 2001, a $1 increase in the minimum wage alone would have lifted an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty. [Sawhill and Thomas, 2001]
• Create One Million Stepping Stone Jobs: Every American should have the chance to work their way out of poverty, but some willing workers cannot find jobs because of where they live, a lack of experience or skills, or other obstacles, like a criminal record. Edwards will create a million short-term jobs to help individuals move into permanent work.
• Create Opportunity in Rural America: Nearly 90 percent of America’s poorest counties are rural. Edwards will invest more in rural community colleges, link training to actual business needs, and support rural small business centers. [Rural Poverty Research Center, 2006]
• Strengthen Labor Laws: Union membership can be the difference between a poverty-wage job and middle-class security. Federal law promises workers the right to choose a union, but the law is poorly enforced, full of loopholes, and routinely violated by employers. Edwards supports the Employee Free Choice Act to give workers a real choice in whether to form a union.
• Enforce Workplace Protections: To help protect workers, Edwards will create a new Labor taskforce to target the industries with the worst abuses of minimum wage and overtime laws. He will step up enforcement of the misclassification of employees as independent contractors and strengthen workplace safety rules.

Overhaul Housing Policy:
• Create a Million New Housing Vouchers: Our current housing policies concentrate low-income families together, isolating willing workers from entry-level jobs and children from good schools. Edwards will create a million vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods. At the same time, he will phase out housing projects that tie families to certain locations and are often lower quality and more expensive than private sector alternatives.
• Revitalize Devastated Neighborhoods: Edwards believes that it is better to invest in struggling neighborhoods than abandon them. He will reform and expand the HOPE VI program to replace dilapidated housing in areas of concentrated poverty.
Fight Abusive Lenders and Help Working Families Save:
• Create New Work Bonds: Edwards proposed a new tax credit to help low-income, working Americans save for the future. The credit would match savings up to $500 per year.
• Expand Access to Bank Accounts: As many as 28 million Americans don’t have bank accounts. Edwards will subsidize bank accounts for working families. [Federal Reserve, 2007]
• Defend Homeowners against Predatory Mortgages and Foreclosure: Edwards will pass a strong national law to prohibit the worst abuses in the mortgage market. The law will strengthen underwriting standards to ensure that borrowers receive affordable loans suited to their means and reach non-bank lenders and mortgage brokers. To help the estimated 2.2 million families already facing foreclosure, Edwards will create a Home Rescue Fund to help families get into more affordable mortgages and let families shed excess mortgage debt that exceeds their home’s value through bankruptcy. [Center for Responsible Lending, 2007; New America Foundation, 2007]
• Protect Families from Abusive Financial Products: Families need someone on their side to help them get a fair deal from lenders and investment companies. Edwards will create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission to protect consumers. It will review all financial services products marketed to consumers and oversee all types of financial institutions, whether chartered under federal or state law. [Warren, 2007]
• Limiting Irresponsible Credit Card Practices: Edwards will restore balance in the credit card market through a Borrower’s Security Act that creates a late payment grace period, limits penalty interest rates to new purchases, and ends the practice of universal default. [Demos, 2003; GAO, 2006]
• Banning the Most Abusive Payday Loans: After the Pentagon concluded that exploitive payday loans undermined military readiness, Congress capped interest rates on payday and other loans to military families at 36 percent, a cutoff that many states use to prevent loan sharking. Edwards will extend this cap to all payday loans, which now average over 300 percent APR. He will also encourage states, local non-profits and responsible lenders to offer low- or no-interest emergency loans. [Center for Responsible Lending, 2006

Strengthening Our Schools:
• Strengthen Public Schools: Edwards proposed expanding access to preschool programs, investing more in teacher pay and training to attract good teachers where we need them most, and strengthening high schools with a more challenging curriculum.
• Promote Economic Diversity: Our nation has two school systems, segregated by race and economic status. While not a substitute either for racial integration or improving schools in every neighborhood, Edwards will promote economic diversity within school districts and across district lines by giving bonuses to middle-class schools enrolling low-income students and double current federal magnet schools funding to attract middle-class suburban students to high-poverty urban neighborhoods.
• Create Second-Chance Schools for High School Dropouts: As many as one-third of all students drop out of school, and the rates are even worse for poor and minority students. Large majorities of recent dropouts regret th