When I saw him speak, all I could think was, this is our generation's JFK. He so has my vote.

I dunno, I've not seen Obama speak live, but John Edwards can light it up JFK-style too. Iowa & NH are going to be win-or-out for Edwards, and if he doesn't win, I'll fall back to Obama.

Boy, how I envy you New Hampshirites your retail politics. It's utter facking bullshit that you and Iowa are the only Americans who actually get to see a presidential campaign in person, but I am jealous nonetheless.

(P.S. We will continue to fund the campaigns for you guys tho, so no worries.)

--signed, California

Obama is quite a charismatic speaker, but I think Edwards is actually better when it comes to speaking to crowds and the press. Plus Obama doesn't take questions outside of his prepared repitoire as well as Edwards does. But Obama seems to have mastered the 10 second sound bite better; most of Edward's best pieces build on themes and are harder to condense into one soundbite.

OMB!

Oh My Bod?

Seriously, I'm rooting for him (though always prepared for disappointment), especially since Kucinich isn't exactly on the fast track. I'd love to see a woman president, but Hillary comes off as sincere and real as a three dollar bill. Very sad... What a missed opportunity for womankind.

I was very impressed by much of the debate as well. Wow. Obama brought up the fact that there is a building in [I forget which nearly-no-tax country] that houses 20,000 American companies, LOL. I love new factoids like that. Great ammo for anyone who actually thinks we're not in an age of world gov't by corporations.

Seriously, I'm rooting for him (though always prepared for disappointment)...

That wasn't very clear. I'm prepared to be disappointed by his performance once he's in office, not by him losing the race. I think (hope) Obama's a shoo-in.

A person's oratory style is about as relevant as their looks ("looks presidential"- gah!) when it comes to home someone will serve as president. There's a joke about how politics is "show business for ugly people," but whether they are ugly or not, I'm sick of showmen masquerading as leaders.

LT, you could probably have delivered that same speech and you would have been just as convincing, if not more so. It's not the emotion that counts, it's the particulars. I don't give a damn about the delivery, I want to see a resume and hear specifically what a candidate plans to do. That's what gets lost amongst all the emoting and back-stories and attack ads and personal drama and etc...

I personally don't think Obama has the resume to be president. He also hired one of those "ex-gay" professional Christians to campaign for him down in South Carolina, to convince the black folks down there that he's gonna keep the gay man in his place, don'choo worry, wink wink.

So no, I won't be voting for him.

Well, I suppose now is as good at time as any to bring this up, 'cause it's been a burr under my saddle:

The other day I saw an image on the web, it had photos of Obama and Clinton, and read:

"Bros before Hos"

I weep for my country.

What does it mean, Triode?

He also hired one of those "ex-gay" professional Christians to campaign for him down in South Carolina, to convince the black folks down there that he's gonna keep the gay man in his place, don'choo worry, wink wink.

It all sucks. There is no good.

But, I mean, Wow. We might have a black president. That's a wall falling that's bigger than the one in Berlin. History.

Not that this will, ya know, redeem America or the human race or anything, or put it off its fastrack to hell, or stop it from taking the rest of the world with it.

Obama did excellently with questions tonight (I was at the speech as well). Very, very impressive - for his intellect, humility, moral courage, and supportable reasons for campaigning. I agree with headspace's JFK comparison, completely. What impressed me most was his academic outlook - the ability to entertain and respect multiple perspectives while still remaining firmly grounded in his own convictions - and the ways in which he uses his knowledge of history to inform his outlook on foreign policy and domestic change.

On the ground in NH, Edwards is a distant third. His campaign has just addressed such a niche audience - midlife boomers - that it has failed to garner wide support and hasn't got much traction with independents. He has allowed himself to focus too narrowly on a few issues. His populist message is appreciated, but he hasn't articulated an encompassing vision that would encourage people at all levels of society to buy into where he's headed. It reads more as a victim message, not as a visionary one.

Hillary's campaign has been suffering from its distance and its packaged nature. She is incredibly capable and knowledgable, but people simply do not trust her - the smooth, unflappable facade is working against her. Obama's messages about transparency, hard messages, and honesty are playing well.

(P.S. We will continue to fund the campaigns for you guys tho, so no worries.)

--signed, California

Well, as long as you get to pick the winner of the Presidential contest every time with your insane number of electoral votes, let's call it even.

In all sincerity, I am a big critic of the NH primary system. I wrote this, with serious aspirations of doing a critical blog as I followed the season in the NH system. But I ended up running out of time to pay attention to writing about it, and in the end, I've developed a more nuanced view of the process. I now acknowledge the inherent unfairness of having one or two states disproportionately privileged with candidate time during the primary season. However, now that I have seen campaigns hard at work, I understand that as bad as things are now, they would be worse if we spread out the primaries, or had more on the same days. Campaign coffers would be sorely challenged, making candidates shill harder for more funds to campaign more elsewhere. Their time would be spent more in transit between the various locations, and even less with voters than it is now. And in the end, there would be fewer Americans, in total, who had met and spent time with each candidate. The small, highly educated population here (46% attainment of bachelor's degree or beyond - unusual) takes its role seriously, and few knee-jerk decisions are made. Each politician is examined and raked over the coals. If this process didn't happen here, it would have to happen somewhere on a similar scale, and the problem of inequality would continue, just be geographically relocated.

I have come to the acceptance that to change the process to be more inclusive would be a fairer process, but a worse one. The candidates would inevitably become further removed from voters, able to avoid more confrontational and challenging situations, not have to look non-supporters in the eye as much and answer their questions. If someone could come up with a fairer system that ensured as much candidate-to-voter contact as this one does, I'd listen (such as rotating the primary state among the 50 every 4 years), but until a serious move toward that is made, this works well.

Besides, the primary has a terrible record for actually predicting the eventual nominee, indicating the the other 48 states do manage to have their say. At least two losers in the NH primary went on to become President (Clinton was one). What it does is provide the early stage on which people can strut their stuff.

What many people don't know is that primaries are not part of the constitutional process for elections; they have been developed through the party system with voluntary state compliance (or noncompliance), and as late as 1968, only 14 states had them. New Hampshire's is one of the oldest. Independents, not just party adherents, can vote in the primary, meaning the contest is really open. It also gives small-budget, small-party, out-there candidates a real shot at media notice and personal goodwill. These small-time candidates would get lost in a national contest.

Having come from a totally condemnatory viewpoint on this to a more mellowed viewpoint through watching what actually happens here, I guess I would say that it works well enough for what it is. If there are going to be primaries - and the parties want them - this is just as good a place as any for a first round. The first round has to be somewhere, and until we convince party leadership to make serious reform efforts toward rotation, this place is a fine enough one.

I'll just vote for whoever isn't a Republican.

I, too, will vote for whoever the Democratic party nominates. I really hope it's Hillary, though.

11 comments about the presidential campaign and no Ron Paul yet?

A person's oratory style is about as relevant as their looks ("looks presidential"- gah!) when it comes to home someone will serve as president.

I disagree with this somewhat. Leadership is at least half storytelling. No leader can motivate and align people unless s/he can articulate a vision for where we should all go together and why they should be trusted with our time and energy. Oratory is a huge part of that, not a fillip. It is the means by which allegiances are formed.

The note about the anti-gay campaigning is disturbing, but it was kind of hard to tell from your link the extent of the person's connection with the campaign and how much he was speaking for himself vs. the campaign. I would like to read more about his stance on that. The other candidates, though, are not lighting a fire under gay rights either. Hillary is no standard-bearer here advocating only limited civil union rights in legal partnership and limited immigration respect for family rights despite general pro-gay rhetoric.

The Human Rights Campaign gives Obama and HIllary the same score on issues of sexuality and human rights: 89 out of 100.

I, too, will vote for whoever the Democratic party nominates.

Seconded. I just hope it's Edwards. I also hope it's not a candidate who tries to reassure the homophobic base like Oboma did, or I'll just abstain. (And that'll kill me, not voting in an election.)

On preview: Miko, HRC has about as much grasp on reality as the candidates do. That is, it's all filtered through campaigns and polls and political machinery... I note their opinion, but then I weigh it against what I see with my own eyes. As we all do.

By "we" I mean all Americans in any political situation, not just gay people and the HRC. Duh. Reading it back, it didn't sound right.

Do you have any more links about Obama and gay issues?

I ask because I'm thinking pretty seriously about supporting his campaign. I can't see what you all see in Edwards.

And, is there any other legislative-review organization giving scores on gay rights legislation?

How can a biracial guy raised by white people be black?

Just asking. At least the grandbun has his daddy and his other grandma representing.

How can a biracial guy raised by white people be black?

Huh?

What does 'black' mean to you?

bunny, he's still gotta go through this world in the skin he's in, no matter who raised him.

I don't really understand this "Obama doesn't have a presidential resume" bit. Is it because he was never a governor? Because from where I'm sitting, he's got a similar resume to Clinton, except for her years as first lady, I suppose. And his work as a public advocate in Chicago is pretty impressive to me. But then, I'm looking for a president who actually cares about his or her domestic policy.

Speaking of the groundbreaking-ness of a black president, I'd like to point out that we had a black US representative, a black senator, and a black US Supreme Court justice well before we had a woman hold any of those positions. So really, having a black president before a female president is a pretty well-established pattern.

Miko, I can only find a few at a moment's notice:

one

two

three

You know what'll happen if his campaign continues...
"Oh we've got rid of that homophobic guy now!" (that we're campaigning in states that don't vote against the gays!)

Say what you will about Clinton and Edwards, but they've never tried to hide the fact that they think gay Americans are, you know, actual Americans. Obama seems to think we are, but not so much when he's in hostile territory.

Didn't black men in the U.S. get the vote before woman?

/remembers not to discuss politics, religion, or the Great Pumpkin.

/remembers not to discuss politics, religion, or the Great Pumpkin.

Heh... I have many times described the act of voting as "waiting for the Great Pumpkin." I live in Georgia, so YMMV.

Yeah, that part makes me sad. I would really like to vote for a woman for President. But I also feel it's very important to vote for the best candidate rather than to vote for the candidate who's most like me. And I'm not a single issue voter, though I do have deal-breaker issues.

The issue is actually discussed on Obama's site and is indeed pretty interesting in terms of his response. He has a tab called "People" with a page labelled LGBT - Obama Pride.

By "the issue" in the second paragraph, I mean the anti-gay pastor issue.

What? So I'm drinking a little wine.

I'm a boring white guy, so I don't have the identity issue going on... I can see where that might be alluring, but jeezus, we have got to get beyond that kind of "point-and-grunt" voting. This also goes for those who think someone "looks presidential" and those who vote because of name recognition. Quit looking at the fucking picture and listen- what is this person going to do to us in the next four years?

Not that they are likely speaking the truth, but at least hear what they're saying, instead of seeing woman/black/old/hot/Clinton/Bush or whatever. That shit is is irrelevant. What are they saying? Is it acceptable?

So really, having a black president before a female president is a pretty well-established pattern.

BTW, LOL, I passed out literature for Jessie Jackson's Presidential campaign in my senior year of high school.

For purposes of comparison:

Edwards on LGBT issues
Press release from Hillary...that's all I could find! Where the heck's her platform statement on LGBT issues? Points off. Or maybe I'm just missing it.
Obama's Op-Ed, A Call for Full Equality, and platform statements/legislative agenda for LGBT issues.

Agreed, BP - that's why I wish everybody would do what I just did, and go to look at the platforms. That's where candidates say most clearly what they plan to do to us. I despise personality voting - when people say things like "I just don't care for his style," and other mushy junk. It's all about policies. What initiatives do they begin, who do they appoint, what legislation do they push? That's what makes a difference in our lives when the rubber meets the road. Former senators and governors have left a good trail to gauge that by, but aside from that, it's all about the platform.

The issue is actually discussed on Obama's site and is indeed pretty interesting in terms of his response. He has a tab called "People" with a page labelled LGBT - Obama Pride.

So he can have it both ways. He tours a primary state with a guy who says "You homos can be cured!" and at the same time he has this multimedia presentation asking for gay people's money for his campaign. When he actually starts talking about the issues in that "Obama Pride" tab in public, in front of a crowd, who might talk back, then maybe I'll listen. He's trying to have it both ways, Miko... "I am a liberal" when he's up north and "I support hetero families against those creepy homos" when he's down south. The McGurkin thing wasn't an accident... if he wanted a gospel singer for whatever reason, did he have to pick one who claimed to be "cured" of teh gay? That was deliberate.

Exactly, Miko. We agree, even though we still have things to discuss. :)

Your link to Edwards' position makes me wish even more he had a snowball's chance in hell. I'm still voting for him.

Edwards (so far) hasn't resorted to homophobia to build support. That's why he's still in the running, and Obama is not. I still live in a state where my will could be contested because my partner is a male. Fuck that.

That wasn't clear. I support Edwards because he isn't afraid to say gay people might want to vote for him. Obama is all about "us" as long as "us" is the crowd he's speaking to... anti-gay spokesmen in South Carolina, Oprah in Chicago. Scream loud in Chicago, we're a big family... in South Carolina, you know, I'm gonna protect our families from those homos (and their families)

Yeah, it's weird - your own state government is more restrictive than Obama's platform policies would be. He's in support of the same or better legislation than the other democrats in this area of law.

I think time will tell on this one. Edwards may not have committed any gaffes like this, but he's also not putting it front and center, and his platform in the LGBT area is not as strong. Obama seems pretty committed to airing the disagreements, hasn't hidden from the backlash, and on the website, unequivocally states his position - and that website plays in all 50 states.

I guess we'll see what evolves and whether he rises or falls in your estimation. If there were no further indications of problems in this area, this story wouldn't be enough to prevent me voting for him. Since I don't think Edwards is going to go the distance, it's between Hillary and Obama for me, and Hillary's LGBT record disappoints me in a couple key legislative areas.

And not that he's doing this, but what if the support Obama builds - his appeal to find centrist agreement on polarizing issues - is the very thing that puts him in a position to enact full equality under the law for gay people? A purer candidate may never be elected. Politics is compromise toward positive ends, after all.

If there were no further indications of problems in this area, this story wouldn't be enough to prevent me voting for him.

That's where we differ. The fact that he allowed an ex-gay asshole to represent him is a huge WTF for me. I know where he's coming from now, and I don't like it. I've got enough preachers in my government down here in Georgia, and the idea of having more of them on the federal level is my worst nightmare.

I've got enough preachers in my government down here in Georgia, and the idea of having more of them on the federal level is my worst nightmare.

BTW, this should be yours, too, because this is what Ralph Reed and his buddies want. He blew his chance at the Georgia governership because people were paying attention, for once (the Abramoff scandal)

But he's not giving up, even after getting pounded at the polls. Like a cockroach, he just will not die.

Yeah, it's weird - your own state government is more restrictive than Obama's platform policies would be. He's in support of the same or better legislation than the other democrats in this area of law.

I KNOW my state is fucked up. I should support Obama because he's going to come back for me after touring the region with a guy who says I'm diseased and can be cured with prayer?

My state might be backward (and it is), but I have some dignity, y'know?

Hillary and John have not felt the need to rally the vote with an "ex-gay" gospel singer who says I'm a "crime against nature..." I know Obama didn't tour this guy up where you live, because he knew it wouldn't play up there. He only toured him down south, where homophobia wins votes.

Not that it matters in the long run, but that's my call- if Obama is our candidate, I just won't vote. And I'll hope he wins anyway.

But, I mean, Wow. We might have a black president. That's a wall falling that's bigger than the one in Berlin. History.

If our first black president gets there by promising to keep gay families from (legally) existing, what have have we gained? Did the shit just roll downhill?

"Bros before Hos" means {whoever posted this thinks}dick is more important than pussy.

I'm going to wait on this one, BP. It's early in the election and things may change. What I saw makes me think he's the best candidate. I'm concerned about the war, the economy, health care, and the erosion of constitutional rights - it's a dark time. I agree that what his campaign did was crappy, but am interested by the specifics of his response (which is consistent with his overall strategy of bringing oppositional groups into conversation) and interested to see what happens in the coming months.

It'll depend on what the polls look like in my state (if it's close, I'll hold my nose and vote Dem--again), but I'm guessing that the eventual Dem nominee will say something about gay people, or abortion, or torture, or something, that'll upset me enough that I wind up voting for the Socialist or the Green or some damn body.

It's a good thing I enjoy the horse-race part of political campaigning, because, otherwise, I'd probably be pretty disgusted.

There are no perfect candidates. And my perfect candidate would always be someone else's nightmare. That's the darned thing about representative democracy.

If I were able to vote, I would not vote for Clinton because her voting record in the senate has so much I disagree with. But that's the only thing I'm sure of. And I would still vote for her in the presidential election.