I think stories like really help frame the debate within the party--do we want a compromiser or a fighter.  People can legitimately value either, but I personally think recent history shows we need a fighter.  

This is not reaching out to people who don't agree with us and using his power of persuasion to bring them over.

It's saying subtly "I agree with you.  I'm not going to do anything you won't like."

Plus note he says "not close his ears" as opposed to "he will open his mouth" to those who still need to be convinced.

At this point, most Americans are moving to embrace equal rights for LGBT persons. The sticking point is marriage, which blows my mind given the acceptance of divorce in America (especially in Bible Belt states). It's really not a sacrament anymore to most Americans.

This is a core issue.  This is where the idea of style comes in.  The Obama camp tells us, trust us, read behind our intent, we will do the right thing, but right now, let us speak to all sides.  This is the point, where some of us want the leaders to stand clearly for something.  That standing for something has been labeled as "angry" "confrontational"  and ultimately "non electable."  That he will be able, like he did before to bring all sides together and in some way the Progressive/liberal position will prevail.  

It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative achievements.

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 African 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.

Is it still okay with those of you who agree with him; that when there is hatred and  injustice against a group of Americans, the concerns and reasons of those who hate them need to be considered?

tano poses an interesting "theory" of this democracy thing. i shan't quote it all here, go read his posts.

nonsense and bunkum. it wasn't the "democracy thing" that mandated equal schools for everyone, it was the SCt., in brown v board of education. it wasn't the "democracy" thing that got the voting rights act passed, or most of the rest of what's commonly referred to as civil rights legislation passed, it was a strong president (LBJ) using strongarm political tactics to force congress to do the right thing.

had johnson waited for that whole "excitement of the masses" thing, AA's would still be waitng.

historically, the type of legislation usually passed, in the wake of "exciting the masses" has been repressive: "three strikes", "mandatory sentencing", etc. so i don't think you really want to go that route.

the impression i get is that obama is with the GLBT community, as long as it has no adverse impact on his career. he instinctively knows what the right thing to do is, but the moment someone makes a public stink, he'll back off, in the guise of "listening" to their "concerns".

and what might their "concerns" be you ask? glad ya asked! their "concerns" are that their religion's dogma hasn't been codified into law, period. that's what the GLBT rights issue is really all about, whether sens. clinton and obama or anyone else chooses to admit it.

 Face it, you cannot parade your candidate on experience because when it came time to make the decision of my generation's lifetime, she decided to make the wrong one.  Unlike Senator Chafee (R-RI), Senator Clinton cannot claim to have been right from day one.  He even supports same-sex marriage rights and opposes the death penalty.  He also supports Senator Obama.  Former President Clinton, on the other hand, suggested that Senator Kerry support vicious anti-gay marriage amendments in 2004, to mute the issue in the general election.  Triangulation indeed.  To Senator Kerry's credit, he declined.  Now, of course, he supports Senator Obama.  As a young (gay) man who vigorously campainged for Senator Kerry and spent three days, sans sleep, hoping to elect him as our next president, I appreciate that truly principled decision.  

As I write this I am just balling. I'm hurt that he doesn't even get it. He talks about addressing the AIDS/HIV epidemic. He is offering $5 billion dollars. Clinton offers $20 billion dollars.

You insult me with civil unions. There is civil marriage in Massachusetts and it hasn't wrecked Massachusetts. But that isn't even the worst part. The worst part is this: ". 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. What about those states that have chosen already to not pursue equality?

And what the hell does this mean: "But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced."

I will never, ever believe that Senator Obama is serious about reaching out to the GLBT community, especially not after "Embrace the Change" (I believe I mentioned this...it was one of my first comments here).  He threw us under the bus then for votes.  I'd rather be scraped off the street by someone else, thanks.  

IIRC, there were horrible anti-gay billboards up in OH during the 2004 election.  Did Kerry reach out to the community as much as HRC and BO are doing?  Does anyone know?  

But yeah, the McClurkin thing seems to have stuck in the GLBT community--not to mention that story that BO didn't want his picture taken with the SF mayor(who's name escapes me now, start with a G).

Not sure if I'm right, but it had occured to me that codifying hate crime laws in many ways just takes it out of the hands of judges, in some areas of the world, who might have thought some of the motives were justified.

I was surprised to see a PC cop take that position.

Still need to be convinced = those I will compromise with????

May I suggest that you are totally imposing on this sentence an interpretation that is formed by your presuppositions, and that there is no good reason to do so.

Obama believes in reaching out and talking to people who do not yet accept our perspective. The goal being to use his persuasive powers to enlarge our coalition by persauding people to join it. This is the basis for his poltical identily since the day he entered politics. And yet you seem to still not be able to wrap your mind around it.

(1) Gay marriage.  I assume both of them oppose a constitutional amendment but personally think "marriage should be between a man and a woman."  Sadly, that craven compromise appears to be the default position for most Dems.  Relatedly, have either of them said anything about DOMA?

(2) Don't ask don't tell.  I believe I saw Biden calling for it to end in one of the early debates.    Have HRC or BHO weighed in?

It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

What it would seem that he is saying is that in order to succeed in attaining equal rights, you have to listen to the opposition in order to properly address their concerns. Engaging the other side is difficult, challenging, and necessary.

It is difficult b/c anti-gay forces want to shut you down, not converse. It's challenging b/c you are tempted to beat them over the head with their own ignorance and bigotry. It's necessary b/c otherwise you will only create animosity and resentment on the other side and not make the kind of progress you really seek. That is my take on those lines.

He's up front about the compromise earlier in the letter when he says states should be allowed to determine their own version of equality. He won't fight for full 14th amendment protection, ie, gays should be issued marriage licenses by their municipalities if us "breeders" <snark> are allowed to have them. I wish he would just adopt this stance, as it is how I see it, but I am

Obama referred to his "gay brothers and sisters" during his sermon (not stump speech) at Ebenezer. That was not easy, but it was necessary.

While I don't agree with his position 100%, I do respect him saying this:

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.

One of Obama's central beliefs seems to be this idea that you do not get your way by only "preaching to the choir." Instead, you have to be willing to "witness" to non-believers, picking up support without selling out on principle. Now, does that mean that everything he supports in that letter will happen? No. But do I think he will make the hard sell and win some good battles, furthering the war towards an ultimate victor? Well, I hope so.

I read Obama's pledge to listen, even to bigots, as the beginning, not the end, of policy making. It's torturing his words to say that he's surreptitiously and cynically saying one thing and doing another. He has a record of support for gay men and lesbians. What he doesn't have is a magic wand to make the huge numbers of religious bigots suddenly welcome queer folk.

 I will say that I will support either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.  I will never support Senator McCain.  

I will not, could not vote for John McCain.

I will not, could not vote for Barack Obama.

My main concern is ENDA.  I watched the Logo debate, and Obama supports a fully inclusive ENDA, like the one he helped pass in Illinois.  Hillary does not.  I'm not sure that she would oppose one, but she does not feel the need to include gender identy and gender expression in the bill.  I'm directly concerned with trans inclusion, but I do also feel that without those protections the bill is meaningless.  Not so much because trans folk will be unprotected, as much as because anyone can be fired with impunity for "acting" gay rather than just for "being" gay.

 When I suggested that both camps align behind the Democratic nominee, I heard from both camps that no, they would vote their "conscience."  A funny conscience indeed.  The same conscience threatens a Senator McCain victory when their nominee is rejected, be it Senators Clinton or Obama.  

 I am disgusted by this behavior.  Yes, the Green Party (and a number of others) deserves to be on the ballot.  Yes, they all deserve consideration.  But yes, anyone who believes this is anything other than a two party system nationally is not paying attention.