Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore

Why I'm not celebrating an Obama victory

Filed By Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore | November 05, 2008 10:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics, Politics
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, billionaires, hypocritical motherfuckers, Nancy Pelosi, offshore oil drilling, presidential election, Robert Gates, Wall Street giveaway, war criminals

I'm pretty sure that I've never watched a Presidential candidate's concession speech, and definitely not from Canada where I deliberately scheduled my book tour to wander during this election time. Here I am sobbing while listening to John McCain, who knew?

I'm sobbing because so many people have such high hopes for an Obama presidency and I can see him shredding those hopes one by one until we're left with nothing but the shredder. It's tempting to say that an Obama presidency has to be dramatically better than a McCain presidency, but then I remember the last Democrat to replace a Bush, the charming saxophone player who succeeded in Reaganite dreams of dismantling welfare, expanding the security state, and grandiose "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that further trashed environmental standards, job security and standards of living.

We don't have to look far to see the ways in which Obama will betray us.

After all, it's only been days since Obama shepherded the trillion-dollar Wall Street giveaway by actively campaigning for its passage and securing enough Democrats in favor to override free-market Republicans who were staunchly opposed. In fact, the only demographic more visibly against this hideous misdirection of resources to the millionaires and billionaires actually causing the financial crisis was the US public as a whole, who jammed Congressional phone lines to such an extent that the powers-that-be decided to briefly shut those lines of communication off. These callers, letter writers, bloggers, campaigners, and voters were overwhelmingly against this corporate-cozy charade.

So, in strict terms, then, this certainly wouldn't be a move that would pull Obama ahead -- why, then, go against what the US public wanted at a critical election moment? Because, of course, Obama is not beholden to the US public as much as he is to his corporate underwriters. Any rhetoric about change strikes me as a joke when juxtaposed against the Wall Street giveaway, which we will certainly feel for decades as social programs get axed and spending for basic needs dwindles.

This is only where Obama's hypocrisy starts. When he talks about keeping on some of George Bush's cronies, including Iran-Contra war criminal (and current Secretary of Defense) Robert Gates, we should ready ourselves for more covert and overt wars around the globe. Starting with a dramatic buildup in Afghanistan, which he has already outlined. And Obama even scandalized his Democratic cohort Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House representing one of the most antiwar districts in the country yet ensuring the continuation of the US war on Iraq, when he voted in favor of offshore oil drilling while at the same time talking about a change in energy policy. We can only expect more corporate-cozy shenanigans in the future.

On the positive side, at least Obama isn't talking about nuking Iran. Yet.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


One thing is clear from this election, while Amerika may finally be outgrowing racism....the religionism and gynophobia are alive and well. Homophobia still reigns supreme in the "land of the free".

No revolutionary movement ever succeeded until it finally confronted, once and for all, the stranglehold of religion on politics. Up until today I had to hold my tongue about who I was voting for because I also head up a religious movement myself, a very much minority one. I could not pull the lever for Obama but before some random idiot calls me a racist again, I did pull it for someone I felt I could vote for Cynthia McKinney. I would not vote for a democrat but did vote for working families (same candidates) because impeachment of the worst president in US history should have been on the table......and I'll think long and hard before I vote for a national level dem ever again.

I could not forget the mysogyny of the primaries...I remain very very uneasy about the Messiah jokes Obama embraced......and the passage of every single anti GLB issue concurrent with Obama's victory is not lost on me. Anyone who thinks those lost battles won't be used to postpone indefinately ENDA, is fooling themselves.

"It's just not time yet"......prepare to hear this.

Cynthia McKinney on the scandal of 5000 people being murdered by Einsatzgruppen and the the bodies buried in the swamps after Katrina.

Nice one, Cathryn.

The rest of your comment I agree with wholeheartedly, which makes your actions even more... puzzling... to me.

Why Zoe?

I'm a woman, not a trans. My issues are women's issues and then Constitutional ones and then lesbian ones...then the overthrow of the patriarchy. It's clear to me that trans people want to legislate "acceptance" which is a joke, you cannot do that. They are willing to hold other's rights hostage towards that end, which I will not support and they do not support or work towards women's issues.

I am in favour of universal civil rights for anyone who's behaviour doesn't harm others, but don't expect me to work arm in arm with those who have spent the better part of the past decade trying to make my own life unlivable.

Mattilda, I totally understand your skepticism. You're always the Leftist voice of reason around this joint. Enjoy the rest of your book tour!

I....agree with Mattilda *The Shivering Starts*.

Forgive me for thinking that this will just be another Clinton repeat.

I like this article, as a socialist I believe that there are bigger monsters to tackle - like capitalism - and Obama is a mere public face for a system that controls us all, including him.

Alberto,
I couldn't agree with you more but let the children have their fun while they can. There will be plenty of time for disillusionment soon, much sooner than they think.

Blockmeister | November 5, 2008 11:39 AM

My Gawd - why don't we actually give the guy a chance! I'm still celebrating the fact that we won't have McCain for the next 4 years and you are already bashing Obama for things he hasn't done! Crazy talk.

exactly... could we give something a chance? maybe? Good God. I thought it was the OLD people who were supposed to be the ugly, cynical ones, not the younger people. Let's not kid ourselves but let's have some hope, first. Sheesh.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | November 7, 2008 9:23 AM

..."you are already bashing Obama for things he hasn't done!"

Hasn't done? Where have you been the past few months? TV broken?

He's already betrayed us by announcing that he's going to stay in Iraq, kill more civilians in Palestine and Afghanistan and continue cross border attacks against Pakistan and Syria. More GIs are going to die for Haliburton and Texaco.

He already betrayed us trumpeting his bigotry about same sex marriage so often and so stridently that all the superstitious bigots scampered out from under their rocks and clobbered us at the polls. Did you just not pay attention election eve? California, Arizona and Florida were Obama's fault as much as the religious rights.

He's already betrayed us by championing Bush's efforts to bailout AIG, GM, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. To say nothing of his $700 billion gift to the wall Street retards who caused a bad recession and maybe a depression.

What does it take to wake you up? Obama is the enemy and he'll give us four more years of Clinton/Bush.

False hope, hope that our enemy will be nice is understandable on death row. The rest of us need to face the facts.

sorry, but no federal marriage is not "bigotry" --he trumpeted a lot of 'pro-gay' stuff including anti-prop 8 and the repeal of DOMA, too -- were you listening to that?

of course he'll disappoint us. someone who appealed to so many is not going to please everyone all the time. that's why I liked about him.

"sorry, but no federal marriage is not "bigotry" --he trumpeted a lot of 'pro-gay' stuff including anti-prop 8 and the repeal of DOMA, too -- were you listening to that?

As a matter of fact I was, and this is what I and millions heard

"While Senators Obama and Biden oppose same-sex marriage, they support civil unions," said a statement issued by campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans." http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3450

His opposition to Prop 8 was tactical and purely on the grounds that it was not a law but a constitutional anmendment. Obama wasn't around when Bill Clinton's DOMA came up for a vote but Biden was and he unapologetically voted for it.

Civil unions limited to GLBT folks are second class citizenship. IT most certainly is bigotry. That's OK by you but most of us want the real deal. (I prefer to live in sin, but that’s probably because I enjoyed it so much in parochial high school.)

If by "trumpeted" you mean a letter sent to a breakfast meeting of some Barney Frank Democrats you ought to consider purchasing a dictionary.

And avoid believing the election year promises of political hustlers with the same good sense that makes you wary of petting rattlers.

Reformed Ascetic | November 5, 2008 12:35 PM

As I was watching the coverage last night I was feeling very conflicting emotions. I happened to be sick, and, though I was unable to share the historic evening with an entertaining group in person, I was able it to spend it with a great group of people online.

I was excited by President Obama’s win. I do believe it is historic. I do believe that it is game changing. I also believe very shortly everyone will be disappointed because change never occurs overnight. I was excited because American history tells me this can be a time of great accomplishments, and that same history tells me that it is the policies of liberal Democrats that can make those positive changes.

I was excited about the Democratic capturing of the House and Senate. We need the government working together now. I was excited because while Obama’s redrawing of the campaign map through his sweeping victory sends a message, capturing the House and Senate makes that message far clearer. I was excited because much of the work I hope to see done requires a strong, power-wielding Democratic party. I’m apprehensive because while I know in my heart they won’t go as far as I desire my fear is that they won’t be proactive enough. I worry both that we will lose these gains in two years through their inaction and that we will lose these gains by their failure to sell their policies to the American people.

I was excited because the GOP appears to currently be in shambles. The party, from the outside, appears to be divided as to their future. A significant portion of the party leadership appears to want to return to a William F. Buckleyesque [awkward I know] course. Another faction seems to want to stay the course with an anti-elitism, pro-fundamentalism agenda headed by Palin. And I find that promising not only for the internal dissent, but because I firmly believe the GOP is about to start dismantling Palin’s career as their thanks for the disloyalty she showed McCain during the race. I was excited because while they may still be a minority the growing number of liberal evangelicals not only helps split their vote, but also helps send the message to everyone else that God is not a Republican.

Then there were the state initiatives. As the 2008 race drug on, I became convinced our community was going to do well in these races. Arizona and Arkansas appeared to me to be questionable, but I was happy about the message that Florida and California were going to send. While Connecticut was important, I didn’t think it was clearly connected to gay rights in the mainstream public’s mind to be classed with the other four. The closer we got to the election the bleaker the outlook got. As I spent the night watching these initiatives, I never really got a chance for HOPE. As Obama made his historic, nation altering addresss, I was both teary eyed and sick at my stomach. Those who granted me the privilege of spending the evening with them seemed much the same.

I have been looking forward to this morning for four years now. First with Hillary in mind, and then with Obama. But there is no joy in Mudville for me this morning. I am managing to retain some hopefulness, but my faith in mankind continues to weaken.

Californians were capable of coming together for the defense of chickens, but not for their gay neighbors. Oprah did a whole show on Prop 2, but there wasn’t enough time in that hour to even mention 8. Arkansans would rather see children raised by the state than in a loving gay home. Arizonans and Floridians …you know what, just fuck them all. There’s no use preaching to choir and right now it sure doesn’t seem like anyone else is listening.

However, I keep coming back to an image I saw on the TV screen last night. After Obama’s win was announced last night, they started videoing scenes of jubilant black crowds. Exclusively black crowds for several minutes. Pictures of young people screaming, dancing cheering, crying. People celebrating the enormous victory. People who’s faith in fairness just grew in unimaginable ways. It wasn’t those pictures that captured my attention. It was a shot of an old, white-haired, black man just standing in the middle of a crowd. He wasn’t moving. He wasn’t speaking. I didn’t see him blinking. He was having a completely different experience than all the cheering younger people. What he was seeing was deeper, too deep to elicit mere cheers.

I am reminded this morning that my community belongs not to that younger generation, but to his.

After the 2004 election, I decided I'd come up with a slogan to express how I felt about things: "Vote Democrat, because false hope is better than no hope at all."

At the time, I truly believed every portion of it. Especially with Kerry as the candidate, I could see nothing but false hope, but I still couldn't give into the alternative of no hope.

I wanted to use that slogan this year, but with Obama becoming the democratic candidate, I couldn't bring myself to do it. I'm feeling hope that I honestly don't think is false, or at least not entirely. I'm prepared for some problems and some disappointments, but I imagine that I'll also see several things I didn't think were possible. For the moment, I'm still holding onto my hope, false or not. But I've got a gnawing feeling in my gut that you're right.

I sincerely feel the hope, too and I'm not about to let any "grumpy Gus" or Chicken Little types take that hope away from me.

I truly do believe that America is on a better course than it's been for a while.

Chris MacDonald-Dennis | November 5, 2008 4:01 PM

Wow, this post reeks of White privilege to me. Who the hell are you to sit on your sanctimonious high-horse, saying there will be no difference. Say that to the millions of those of us who are not white and saw one of us as President this morning.

Will he be perfect? Of course not. But it is only egotistical Whiteness that allows you to sit there and say what you do....

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | November 5, 2008 4:23 PM

Mattilda, that’s a good post. But I take issue with your comment “On the positive side, at least Obama isn't talking about nuking Iran. Yet.”Sorry but it’s a done deal.

Joe Biden will play Cheney for Obama in the Middle East wars, backed up now by Gates, Bush’s current war minister and Colin Powell, war criminal. All three are long time members of the exclusive “Borders Are For Sissies” Club.
For them, and Obama, peace in the Middle East means a piece of Palestine, a slice of Syria, a bunch of Iraq, A piece of Pakistan, and Afghanistan for dessert.

A few weeks ago at a Seattle Democratic fundraiser Biden said:

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"And he's gonna need help… Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10242008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02102007.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/abulhawa09182008.html

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | November 5, 2008 4:25 PM

Mattilda, that’s a good post. But I take issue with your comment “On the positive side, at least Obama isn't talking about nuking Iran. Yet.”Sorry but it’s a done deal.

Joe Biden will play Cheney for Obama in the Middle East wars, backed up now by Gates, Bush’s current war minister and Colin Powell, war criminal. All three are long time members of the exclusive “Borders Are For Sissies” Club.
For them, and Obama, peace in the Middle East means a piece of Palestine, a slice of Syria, a bunch of Iraq, A piece of Pakistan, and Afghanistan for dessert.

A few weeks ago at a Seattle Democratic fundraiser Biden said:

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"And he's gonna need help… Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.”

I think I've stumbled either back in time to some weird past where rich white people preach about running dog lackeys of the imperialist clique and how we all need to de-camp to Guyana to live free, or Debbie Downer incarnate has landed. Can you really take yourself seriously?

I was born somewhere way more leftist than you could ever conceive of and yet there as well as here, people recognize a true change, and that pragmatism is necessary. If we fail, it is because people like you are trying to trip up progress because you didn't get your way.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | November 7, 2008 9:59 AM

If you were trying to be patronizing and mocking
take my advice and sign up for online classes at Sarcasm U. That was one of the most clumsy tries I've seen in months.

What you stumbled on, and stumble is an apt choice of words, was one of thousands of discussions about the left's response to the dismal betrayals of Obama and the Democrats in general. He's an open bigot, a tool of Wall Street and as of Tuesday the genocide in the Middle East is his genocide. Get used to it.

Is that why you support him?

I work in the repair department at a major telecommunications company. This is not residential, but business and corporate telecommunications . . . the big stuff. When dealing with some of my customers who want to know why things always break down, I tell them, "Human beings are inherently flawed and everything they touch is flawed. Stuff will break."

I have a job because people are flawed and things they build are also flawed in some way. If ALL humans are flawed, then they will make mistakes and disappoint. The choice this time was between a person far more flawed then the other person. Obama will make mistakes and will disappoint us. He's only human. But, he will disappoint us far less then McCain would have.

With all due respect, Mattlida, your post really set me off. You make it seem like people celebrating right now have had the wool pulled over their eyes. I wrote a more coherent response here, check it out: http://www.pushback.org/2008/11/06/why-cant-we-celebrate-for-now/

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | November 6, 2008 2:00 PM

"You make it seem like people celebrating right now have had the wool pulled over their eyes."

Or worse. Some Democrats obviously knew that they were voting for a bigot – “god's in the mix" – and a President who'll impose poverty and austerity to pay the debts of the retarded rich and enlarge and expand the war in the Middle East.

I read you remarks and I think you knew that on some level but you voted for it anyway based on the delusion that ‘progressives’ or liberals can reform the Democratic party. Such support is unprincipled.

Bill,

I never said I was hoping to reform the Democratic Party. I voted for a candidate, not a Party. I never even self-identified as a big-D Democrat. Calling Obama a bigot is certainly inflammatory - yes his judgment on the whole McClurkin thing shows how he's had to moderate his views, but at the same time, why don't we capitalize on the grassroots base that has been mobilized for Obama and channel and funnel this energy and these new voters into issue campaigns that you and I so care about (the rights and safety of lgbt folks, the war, etc)?

Obama's not ideal. No one is. I intentionally work on the fringes - outside of government - so that I can continue to apply pressure in a progressive direction, regardless of who's in office. I think you've got to give people more credit.

Chris,

That's below the belt. A lot of people of colour, including African-Americans, aren't enthused about the Obama election. It's unfair to charge someone with "white privilege" just because they're white (as far as we can tell) and critical of the president-elect. Take a look at the pages of Black Agenda Report (blackagendareport.com) or the sharp work of Adolph Reed. But most of all, let's not use race as the default/fallback point of critique. I think Mattilda's position, shared by many, deserves more attention than that. And using race in this slipshod way takes away from the very real ways in which race does matter.

You're right. Absolutely no hope to do the right thing should be placed in Obama now. It's time to pull him to the left as hard as we can.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | November 7, 2008 8:57 AM

That remark - it's time to pull him to the left as hard as we can - sums up all the delusional futility of squandering our efforts trying to influence or reform the Democrat party.

It's simply nonsense to think that the 'base' of the Democrat Party has any clout at all. Obama’s owned by the dimbulbs on Wall Street who wrecked our economy. He betrayed every working person in the country when embraced and championed the theft of trillions including the bailout, AIG, auto makers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Congress even turned off their phones and faxes so they wouldn’t have to deal with the rage of their ‘base’.)

No one who’s trapped in a political closet has clout. At best, and if not too push, they may get a few crumbs or the occasional fig leaf and they’re welcome to them. The rest of us have a better and proven way to compel substantive concession by building massive, independent, militant movements.

All the constituents of the Democrat party are going to get are fresh supply stab wounds in the back. LGBT supporters of Obama and the Democrats did us no favors, just the opposite. They helped, intentionally or not, to derail the movement (for a time). Their silence about his open bigotry, especially by NO on 8 and similar groups in Florida and Arizona, was deafening. It contributed mightily to justifying the bigotry he shared with other superstitious folks - “god’s in the mix” and he brought them out in droves. We’re under the bus - again.

And it gets worse. Democrats elected a superstition driven bigot as president, a bigot who voted for DOMA and DADT as vice president and a Congress full of Barney Frank clones led by Reid and Pelosi.

Odin help us.

Those Democrats who tried to mislead voters about the real causes of recession, war, deregulation and the myriad crises we face are misleaders. It is simply not true that they’e the fault, or even mostly the fault, of Republicans. They’re all crises brought on by the nearly unanimous participation of Democrats and Republicans. The call it bipartisan ship, we call it being under the bus.

But that’s all behind us. Now our task is not to waste our time tugging at Obama’s coat sleeves, but to politically tear down his administration, brick by brick. That’s the job of an independent left who’ll happily do it by building the antiwar movement, the struggle for full equality and the fight against austerity measures, unemployment, foreclosures and a little thing called recession or it’s big brother, depression.

Go on dreaming, Bill. Many of us have heard your kind of foolhardiness before during the Queer Nation years of the late '80s and early '90s. It ends up only giving ammunition to the Karl Roves of this world. Gays abandoning the Democratic party will help the Republican party, which is increasingly becoming dominated by its right wing. No one who closely follows American politics would think that someone like Sarah Palin or Lindsay Graham or Phil Gramm is essentially the same as Barack Obama or, for that matter, Rahm Emmanuel when it comes to all the issues you cited.

For the record, Obama has also called Prop 8 divisive and did not support it. He also opposes DOMA, which Clinton signed. Seriously, do you think any presidential candidate who has a realistic chance of winning a national election in a comparatively conservative county like the U.S. (that quickly excludes Kucinich or Mike Gravel) can come out unequivocally in support of marriage equality without risking his/her candidacy?

The sad truth is that change is very incremental.
A smaller percentage of California voters voted against marriage equality in '08 that was the case in '00. But still a majority of Californians voted for 8; in fact, besides gays, I know of only one other voter segment, white women, where a majority of voters opposed the measure.

As daunting as the task seems, it is up to the courts and LGBT people and organizations to keep fighting for our rights and making our stories known. But tearing down "brick by brick" what by all reasonable projections will be the most progressive U.S. administration since Jimmy Carter, if not LBJ or JFK or even FDR, is hardly the way to go about doing it -- even if (horrors) the California Supreme Court upholds 8.

Calmuse, if you’re a muse I’d bet my last dollar that you’re Melpomene, Muse of Tragedy. I was clued in by your gloomy outlook and fear of struggle.

You say that advocating full equality, and inclusive ENDA, a tough hate crimes bill, etc. is foolhardy. You tremble at the thought of upsetting Rove, Dobson and like-minded vermin. Of course our fight upsets them. So what? The difference between the left and liberals is that we know we’re in a serious battle to defend our communities and we know that hiding in political closets like the Benedict Arnold Republicans or the Barney Frank Democrats is not an answer.

“Gays abandoning the Democratic party will help the Republican party, which is increasingly becoming dominated by its right wing." So what? Obama is dancing to the right as fast as he can. And he’s dancing on Wall Streets card. http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn10032008.html

Both parties are right centrist. As time goes by the futility of supporting this or that right wing party is becoming evident to more and more people, if not to you. The parties differ only on the question of which tribe of snorters will win the contest to feed at the public trough. This time it’s the wild ‘n woolly Democrat peccaries’ turn. Next time it’ll the more sedate but equally swinish Republican domestic breed of pigs. Then the Republicans again, then the Demo… Same old, same old.

"For the record, Obama has also called Prop 8 divisive and did not support it. He also opposes DOMA, which Clinton signed." For the real record Obama is a bigot when it comes to same sex marriage, he opposed Prop 8 on tactical grounds, because it’s a constitutional amendment. What defines his politics are ‘god’s in the mix’, not some dubious election year fig leaf to cover his prejudice. He pandered to bigots from day one and made big inroads into Rovian territory. Now the bigot’s own him. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/05/AR2008110503908.html?hpid=sec-religion

"Seriously, do you think any presidential candidate… can come out unequivocally in support of marriage equality without risking his/her candidacy?" Seriously, Melpomene, I think that if elections were agents of change they’d be outlawed.

The sad truth is that change is very incremental. No Melpomene, the sad truth is that you've grown tried of the fight.

Bill, Bill, maybe I am Melpomene, and for good reasons. I have hardly grown tired of the fight. But I have grown tired of extreme tactics like yours that have never worked very well, though their brassy retro melodrama can make for exciting news copy—it'll sell a few more magazines or attract a few more viewers who'll hopefully also watch the ads.

Lasting change is nearly always incremental, and the Prop 8 defeat needs to be viewed in that light. A smaller portion of Californians opposed marriage equality this year than was the case in 2000, despite the avalanche of wildly negative TV ads and mailers from the Yes on 8 campaign, which was heavily funded by the Mormons and supported by a range of other religious groups: Catholic, fundamentalist Christians of various ethnicities, many African-American churches, and some of L.A.'s orthodox Jewish leaders.

What gay and lesbian people can do now is keep pushing, but in a less naively optimistic fashion; we have to realize that we are a small and rather divided sector of the population, and that for all the glowing talk about how far gays have come, many voters in reputedly progressive California (longtime residents like me know California isn't always that progressive) still have misgivings about the validity of our lifestyles. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the range of reactions to same-sex couples wanting to marry or raise children. The courts, where the rights of minorities have the best chance of being protected, is where this battle needs to go now. And there are very strong questions about the constitutionality of Prop 8 or the degree of financial involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Before you start running off about Obama, I suggest you read his interview in The Philadelphia Gay News, which was also carried by several other LGBT news sites and magazines. I challenge you to name one other viable presidential candidate (forget Kucinich or the fringe candidates that never get much of the vote) who has such a progay record as a legislator.

And as far your remark about elections, you offer nothing of any concrete coalition-building value in their place. You just offer dated gay-ghetto rage. Yeah, that's really going to change a few hearts and minds in larger population we all live among.