Robert, thank you so much for posting those clips.

That broadcast has long been burned into my psyche. As a teen just leaving home for college, aware at some levels that I was gay, but with no role models or language to cope with that awareness, I remember the shattering, shaming impact of Buckley's words to Vidal when I first heard them.

Ever since, I have not been able to hear Buckley's voice on videoclips without a shudder.

How gay people are represented and treated in the media has a great deal to do with how young gay psyches are shaped, for weal or woe. You're absolutely right: it matters tremendously who is president, since our leadership sets the tone for media representation of all minority groups.

I agree, Bil. It is important to see these clips, especially for someone like me, who had never seen them before.

Great post, Robert!

Want another reason for a President Obama?

Can you say three Supreme Court justices?

His reign is over. Long live Vidal.

Wow.... I've never really thought about that time, it was for me as the nation a turbulent time. I was 13 going on 14 and ambivalent about much that was going on in society. Chicago, scared the hell out of me. Seeing Buckley go mad on TV was just scary for a young teen, especially one who was just starting to understand himself. And it was in that fall that I first made that probing hope for acceptance by telling a good friend I was a homosexual (gay by any other word, we hadn't heard the word gay in small-town Indiana back then). But my friend might as well had been Wm F. Buckley Jr. for the hate-filled speech I received back from him.

Then there was that time in the high school locker room that I glance too long at an object of my lust that my 'friend' told me to "resist it, Lynn, resist it, be strong!" That I remember just looking away (back in the direction of my lust) and smiling. I should have realized that his exhortations were of no more use than that which ex-gay groups should use.

Ah memories... dang right it's important who wins, for the next 14 year old high school freshman this fall.

Nitpick 1: Buckley was a Yale man. Not Harvard. It isn't fundamentally important, just an historical fact.

Nitpick 2: Vidal is a damned irascible person, and will argue with anyone over anything just for the sport of it. That doesn't excuse Buckley's behavior, but it's *really* easy to get pissed off at Vidal. BTW, he isn't a fan of the gay community and doesn't feel any particular allegiance to it.

There are some great old classic feuds from the Dick Cavett show, BTW, with clips available that are amazing. Highly recommended.

Robert, it's good to see a posting from someone who recognizes the importance of history in modern political analysis. These videos should serve to remind us all that, while the messages of liberals and conservatives may change, the differences between them remain as wide as Texas - and our choice remains as clear as ever, too.

Does it really matter who wins if McCain and Obama both pander to anti-GLBT bigots? Especially since the polls show that Obama and the Democrats won the ‘Most Successful Panderers’ title back from the Republicans who held it in 2000 and 2004. Both parties supported bipartisan efforts of enact bigoted laws like DADT and DOMA and both refused to repeal them. However the effort to gut ENDA and to toss it and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill into the garbage were purely Democratic (sic). The Republicans were just along for the ride while we got tossed under the bus. Both candidates are pigheaded opponents of same sex marriage, and one in particular, Obama, won’t shut up about it.

It’s not particularly important which one wins because the GLBT communities will have to battle against both parties and both candidates to achieve our agenda against Republicans who openly revile us and Democrats who are too chickenshit to mention our names. What is vital is that we build the movements to do that instead of wasting our efforts and money on Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Both Obama and McCain are going to recapitulate Nixon’s role in ’68. The invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq were the work of an awesomely inept Republican administration the invasion and attempted occupation of Vietnam was the work of an arrogant and equally inept Democratic (sic) administration.

The two candidates in ’68, Tricky Dick Nixon and Humbert Hubfrey both supported continuing the war by calling for ‘phased withdrawal’, just as Obama and McCain do now. ‘Phased withdrawal’ is like quicksand; it can, and will, submerge the best of intentions.

During the Vietnam War enough people were fooled by Nixon’s phased withdrawal BS to get him elected. Nixon went on to spread the war to Laos and Cambodia and ordered terror bombing attacks and the widespread use of chemical warfare. They learned the hard way that Democrats and Republicans both aimed at winning the war. As it ground on the antiwar movement grew exponentially and in Nam the Army’s ‘fighting spirit’ was extinguished by massive, sullen anger and antiwar sentiment. That development retarded and eventually ended US plans to go on the offensive in its tracks. Large scale fraggings were a clear signal that mass insubordination was on the agenda. The fact that GIs were uninterested in fighting and threat of larger mutinies forced the withdrawal of US forces and led to Vietnamese independence and reunification.

Both LBJ and Nixon were eventually driven from office in disgrace because of the militancy of the massive antiwar movement which also engendered a youth radicalization, a powerful GI antiwar movement, and the formation of feminist groups and the growth of GLBT movements. At the same time African American and Latino nationalists and leftists began to contest for the leadership in their communities but in many cases their efforts were stopped by police and FBI murder squads.

The solution in Iraq is not “phased withdrawal’ but the total, immediate and permanent withdrawal of all US military, mercenary and ‘security’ forces from the Middle East to US home bases. Voting for Obama or McCain means a longer war and a wider war.

Join the antiwar demonstrations at the conventions of the two war parties in Denver and St. Paul and then join us in planning the antiwar movement’s next campaign to stop the genocide and save our soldiers. There’s time for congress to defund the genocide, pass an inclusive ENDA, repeal DADT and DOMA and pass the very badly need hate crimes bill and put unstoppable pressure on the White House to sign them into law. Or impeach Bush and Cheney and let Pelosi sign them into law.

Think that’ll happen. Think again.

Obama has made it clear on a number of occasions that he supports GLBT rights - he has actually said this to T people, in fact. McCain's voting record speaks for itself - he's no friend of GLBT.

The antiwar part, I buy. Obama will be taking an "Iraquization" approach, as Nixon did with Vietnam (ah, there's pesky history again). McCain is on record as stating that we will be there 99 years from now. Which one is better? I'll take Obama's approach. I'd prefer Kucinich's approach, but Obama gets my vote for being far better on most issues than McCain's record indicates he will be.

Where you lose me is with this:
[impeach Bush and Cheney and let Pelosi sign them into law.]
Impeaching Bush and Cheney was an option a year ago, but there's no time for that now. It would tie up Congressmen at a time when many of the Class of 2006 need all the help they can get to get reelected. And what makes you think Pelosi would sign a withdrawal? If Pelosi'd wanted to defund the war, there are bills filed now to do that, and she would have fastracked them as House Speaker. Frankly, given her performance as House Speaker, she gets a D- from me, as does Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader - didn't stand up to fight the FISA bill, didn't fight for hate crimes, didn't fight to keep T in ENDA, didn't cut the funds for Iraq.....ad infinitum. If I lived in Pelosi's district, i'd be voting for Cindy Sheehan, if she ends up on the ballot. Pelosi has the backbone of an amoeba.

“Obama has made it clear on a number of occasions that he supports GLBT rights”. What, except faith, leads you to believe that Obama’s not a Clinton clone, keeping in mind that both are politicians, liars, hustlers, and bought and sold members of the world’s second oldest profession.

“McCain's voting record speaks for itself - he's no friend of GLBT.” Totally correct. McCain is the enemy. But ask yourself, what does the passage of DOMA and DADT and the refusal to repeal them, plus the gutting of ENDA and the ditching of a very badly needed hate crimes bill and pigheaded opposition to same sex marriage say about the Democrats. It says, irrefutably, that irrespective of who runs Congress, both parties pander to bigots and both parties will act against us if it’s expedient.

With Democrats like that who needs Republicans?

“The antiwar part, I buy.” Then join the antiwar movement if you attend one of the conventions and keep in touch with the National Assembly to end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations. There are local units all over the country. If you’re a vet you can also keep in touch with Iraqi Vets against the War who are organizing ‘active duty military personnel, Iraq War veterans, Afghanistan War veterans, and other veterans who have served since 9/11 who are opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.”

http://natassembly.org/thecall/

http://www.ivaw.org/

“Where you lose me is with this: ‘impeach Bush and Cheney and let Pelosi sign them into law.’”

I asked the question rhetorically knowing that nothing good will come from the Democratic Party. Democratic (sic) supporters often project their views and hopes on candidates who don’t care about us at all. They’ll continue to ignore and justify the Democrats backstabbing until they see a political alternative to the twin parties.

We don’t have that alternative yet. Nader and/or the Greens are not, at least in the US, a sufficiently worker oriented radical alternative to the twin parties. They’re liberals. The birthing process of the US Labor Party seems interminable but nearly complete and the growth of a left wing in the unions will give it some real resources.

In any case, the time when the two parties could make promises and then casually betray their constituents is coming to an end. The economic situation will see to that.

“Pelosi has the backbone of an amoeba.” Granted, but that’s because she’s a Democrat. What did you expect, principles? The Democrats are like the Republicans. They have no principles, only the all-consuming imperative to get elected and divvy up the money and power.

Thank you all, I hope we learn that the more things change the more they stay the same. We have made incredible progress as a movement against the forces of fear and stupidity.

Rory, sorry about Harvard you are absolutely right, and yes Vidal is a lightning rod, but on this issue I agree with him and I am sure you do as well. He is not a friend of the Gay community because he is an affirmed bisexual who maintains that is the natural state and there are only homosexual and heterosexual behaviors. If you have not done so I hope you read the "Esquire" article. He explains his point of view and has not strayed from it for forty years.

Mr. Perdue's attitudes justifiably come from the many decades of Democratic dominance of congress that is a faded memory now. The democratic party of that time had it's many interest groups at the time. It took the republicans to perfect "k" street shenanigans. They simply did the money dance so much better.

I am very happy you have been having fun with your mouse Bill. Is his name Karl?

In that the founding of the republic was by and for landed white men and now the landless, women and minorities have the franchise I hope that they exercise their votes to good effect. You expect the powerless to mobilize in some mass revolution and we can't get most Americans to the polls to vote in their best interest because they prefer to watch television.

That the wealthy, bright and connected watch less TV and spend more time working in their interest does not make them evil. It just makes them organized and the rest of us should emulate their best and disdain their worst tendencies. That would be keeping up with the times.

Or as Mrs. Karl Marx said of her husband: "I wish my husband had spent less time talking about capitol and more time acquiring some."

Socialism is a march to the lowest common denominator of failure. It is the greatest surrender of individual liberty and excellence on the altar of collective mediocrity. But I should not have to tell you this, how many dozen folks came to your last over spiced Mexican fiesta?