One More Thing: My family & today's election

This morning three generations of my lily white family, ranging in age from 22 to 81, voted for a black man for president. And we did it in Kansas, even though we knew that Barack Obama doesn't have a chance in holy heck of taking our state's electoral votes. We did it because it was the right thing to do. We did it because we think Obama is the right person for the job.

It wasn't until after I cast my vote that I realized how emotional I feel about finally having the opportunity to vote for an African American for president. It makes me want to cry to see this country live up to its promise. I can only pray that the people of California, Florida, Arizona and Arkansas will continue to support that promise by turning their backs on discrimination.

Dozens of call center workers refuse to read McCain script

Who says hope isn't part of politics? This is the most amazing and beautiful story I've read in weeks.

A passing acquaintance with the truth

The McCain campaign vs. the Truth.

Today's Must Read: Everybody take a deep breath

I agree with David Broder that both Democrats and Republicans need to chill out. In talking about the presidential election, Broder writes:

...the uncertainty of the outcome is overwhelming.

Conventional Wisdom Alert

By Diane Silver

In case you missed it, journalism's current declared conventional wisdom about the presidential race is that Barack Obama has already lost the election because -- take a deep breath -- he's:

• Too black
• Too smart
• Too liberal
  
• Too not liberal
  
• Too thin
• Too vague on the details
  
• Too eager to include too many details
• Too flip floppy
• Too firm on not flip flopping (After all, Obama sat in Rick Warren's Saddleback Church and actually told the congregation that he didn't agree with them on everything. What an idiot.)
  
• Too attached to the state of his birth, Hawaii, which apparently isn't in the United States anymore, and how dare Obama actually vacation in a state where millions of other Americans have also vacationed (How un-American of him, and, ah, them.)
• Too not into eating what everyone else eats (By the way, does anyone actually know what Obama eats?)
  
• Too nuanced (see Sally Quinn post)
  
• Too nice (He won't fight back hard enough.)
  
• Too rich! (Please ignore the fact that he was raised by a largely single mother and doesn't come from a wealthy family. Please ignore the overwhelming wealth of John McCain, his wife and their many homes because here's the kicker: Obama went to a fancy university. How DARE he get a Harvard education!)
• Too Muslim (except Obama isn't)
• Too Christian (Did you see who his pastor was?)
• Too close to John McCain in the polls because Obama shouldn't be tied at all because everyone knows everyone hates the Republicans and everyone knows that any other candidate would have already been victorious by now (Oh wait, we haven't actually voted yet.)
• Too saddled with the wrong middle name
  
• And, yes, wait for it... TOO popular! (The nerve of all those people going to see him speak in Germany. How dare anyone think that anyone who draws hundreds of thousands might be anything but a bubble-headed Paris Hilton clone. Isn't a person's ability and a candidate's fitness to be president tied to keeping his crowds tiny? Shouldn't we elect someone everyone ignores?)
  

Can Obama win? I have absolutely no idea, but I would sort of (because I'm old fashioned) like to have the chance to actually see the rest of the race, watch debates, listen to speeches, read examinations of the issues if anyone ever does that anymore, make my own decision and like, well, have a chance to cast my vote.

Why do I think Obama isn't already leading the polls by 20 points? Honestly, because getting elected president is hard. In the last two elections, American voters have been split almost evenly. Why in the heck should anyone win this by a landslide?

Oh, here are a few more theories.

Kansas: The thrill of caucusing

By Diane Silver

What a rush. More than 2,200 people turned out at my caucus site at the Douglas County Fairgrounds. We had to park in mud with our tires sinking into a deepening quagmire and stand in lines for an hour or more, but we did it, laughing all the time.

The supporters of my candidate, Barack Obama, far overwhelmed the 385 folks sitting forlorn in a corner for Hillary Clinton. Maybe it was because my candidate came out a head, but for me who won wasn't as important as the sheer energy and joy I felt in that room.

I heard more than one person say it: What counts is that we take back this country. What counts is that we turn our collective backs on George W. Bush and company.

We stood in dirt. (They normally show livestock in this cavernous building.) We milled about, chatted, kicked the sole soda pop machine when it ran out of cans. The machine emptied almost instantly.

I talked to a woman in her 40s who had forgotten to eat dinner before coming and said she was starving. That didn't matter, she said, it was better to be at the caucus. That was at about 8 p.m. I talked to a couple in their 60s who were thrilled by how the crowd was a mixture of black, white and Hispanic.

I saw a woman who had to be at least 85. She was hunched, with a scarf pulled on her head and bundled in a thick winter coat. She sat on a chair with a walker standing in front of her. And yes, this being the home of the University of Kansas, I saw many college students.

The place boiled with energy. I'm amazed we didn't blow the roof off.

Here are other accounts of the Kansas Democratic caucuses.

blueinks at Daily Kos talks about caucusing in the sleet and without power in El Dorado.

Pam Pholy at Everyday Citizen writes "They braved a blizzard" and provides great photos of the Ellis County caucus.

Ally Klimkoski at Everyday Citizen talks about how the caucuses in one Lawrence location overflowed. (That's the one my son attended. Yay Tony!)

The Lawrence Journal-World provides an overview with details on overflowing caucus sites in Johnson County.

PHOTO: Check out the full photo at the Journal-World site and play "Where's Diane?"

And the winner is: Barack Obama

By Diane Silver

As anyone who has been reading this blog, my column and my other work knows, I have waffled like a maniac when it comes to picking a Democratic candidate. I worried about Hillary Clinton and gnashed my teeth over Barack Obama.

But the time for questions is over. It's Super Tuesday and in six hours I head to the first caucus I've ever attended in my life.

First to state the obvious: I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination. This country can no longer afford the incompetence, the policies and the narrow minded politics of the Republican Party.

I've thought long and hard about supporting Hillary Clinton. I WANT to be able to vote for the first woman president. I am furious at the sexism Clinton has faced in this campaign. I also think Clinton is brilliant, capable and able to serve as president on day one, as she is fond of saying. As important, I agree with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman that Clinton has the best health care plan, and that Obama's plan and approach has serious difficulties.

But I don't want any more family dynasties. I don't want a nominee whose willingness to fight for me is questionable.

Clinton can fight. That's not an issue, but as Frank Rich wrote this weekend, she tends to hang back when the battles involve important policy issues.

On the Iraq War, in particular, Clinton supported George W. Bush in the crucial first vote. I simply do not buy Clinton's explanation that she didn't have the right information at that time. All of the failures of the Iraq War were detailed and predicted before that vote. I heard about them. How could she have missed them?

As Rich wrote:

That both Clintons are capable of fistfighting is beyond doubt, at least on their own behalf in a campaign. But Mrs. Clinton isn’t always a fistfighter when governing.

As a nation, we can't survive with a leader who won't make the tough stands. As a lesbian and a woman, I know my family can't survive under a president who refuses to stand up for me when it counts.

In the last few weeks, two events have finally tipped me into the Obama camp.

In January, Obama appeared at Dr. Martin Luther King's old church, Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta, and confronted the congregation about its own failings. What moved me was the fact that he was willing to stand up for lesbians and gays, Jews and immigrants and tell his own community that it was wrong. Obama said:

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

The final weight on the scale came in the form of an endorsement -- of all things. I've never been swayed by an endorsement before in my life.

The first that caught my attention was Caroline Kennedy's. That one literally gave me whiplash because I had never heard of her becoming involved in a campaign before.

However, it was Ted Kennedy's endorsement that swayed me.

I have worried that Obama's approach might, as Rich wrote, make him "so obsessed with transcending partisanship that he can be easily rolled." I worried that Obama's commitment to progressive ideals might not be real.

Although I am sometimes dismayed with Ted Kennedy's personal failings, no one can deny his decades of commitment to compassion and reality-based politics. When it comes to policy and politicians, I trust his word. The fact that he has worked with both Clinton and Obama makes Ted Kennedy's endorsement doubly important.

Very soon I will join other Democrats in Lawrence and make my voice heard.

Tonight I will stand up for Obama in the belief that he will stand up for me.

VIDEO: Obama's speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church.

A lesbian ponders the thrills & spills of Super Tuesday

By Diane Silver

I'm pleased to announce that The Progressive Media Project has distributed my newest op-ed nationally. The column starts:

As a lesbian, I’m more exhilarated and infuriated by this year’s presidential campaign than I’ve ever been before. And at 55, I’ve seen more than a few presidential bouts.

Read more.

Super Tuesday Watch: Hillary Clinton picks up an LGBT endorsement

By Diane Silver

The New York Blade split with the Gay City News and endorsed Hillary Clinton. The Blade's editorial board writes:

We must look beyond gay issues to endorse a candidate. We’re not alone in doing this. A November survey of LGB Americans by Hunter College (funded by the Human Rights Campaign) found that only 21 percent of respondents placed LGB rights above issues such as the economy, health care and the war....

Looking at the wreckage left by our current Commander in Chief, we want an experienced leader who can get serious work done. That is why we endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The Blade acknowledges some hesitance over endorsing Clinton, but then argues:

We question whether Obama can muster the aggression needed to force change. His talk of bringing people together reminds us of current Democratic Congressional leaders’ talk of bipartisanship. In an effort to avoid confrontations with Republicans, Dems have gotten us nowhere in 2007: no hate crimes, no ENDA, no impeachment...

This would not be the case if Hillary were running the show. It might be if Obama were President. In October, Obama learned that “ex-gay” minister Donnie McClurkin had been invited to speak at one of his fundraisers. Under the rhetoric of bringing opposing viewpoints together, Obama allowed McClurkin to speak. In doing so, he gave credence to the harmful “pray the gay away” propaganda.

Super Tuesday Watch: The LGBT community tears itself up over its choices

By Diane Silver

As we barrel toward Super Tuesday, the LGBT press in the voting states is beginning to weigh in on the choices for president.

Not surprisingly, Republicans aren't getting much love from the queer world. Meanwhile, writers and editorial boards are torn over the two remaining Democratic candidates.

From the state of New York, Barack Obama gets both an endorsement and criticism.

The Gay City News in New York City endorses Obama in an editorial that seems more anti-Hillary Clinton than pro-Obama.

He deserves kudos for his courage in standing up against the rush to war in Iraq at a time when conventional political wisdom counseled a would-be national figure to do otherwise. He will serve the nation well if he can articulate a comprehensive approach not only toward the mess in Iraq but also the broader and more explosive question of America's standing in the entire Islamic world.
....

In his recent comments about what Ronald Reagan offered to Americans hungry for optimism and new ideas, Obama ought to have made more clear his understanding that at critical moments the hope for unity cannot substitute for hard choices. This newspaper was probably tougher on Obama than anyone else was for his ill-considered decision to call on Donnie McClurkin - a so-called "ex-gay" gospel singer vitriolic in his attacks on the LGBT community - to reach out to churchgoing African-American communities in South Carolina. We are counting on him to make wiser choices in future efforts to "build bridges" - and on that score applaud the loving words about his "gay brothers and sisters" Obama enunciated from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Atlanta pulpit last week.

The McClurkin episode, unfortunate as it was, pales in comparison to the divisiveness that Senator Clinton has allowed her campaign to devolve into. Her comparison between the roles played by Dr. King and President Lyndon Johnson in advancing civil rights can be chalked up to inartfulness. The comments coming from her surrogates are far more disturbing, forming a pattern that sadly can no longer be ignored.

Meanwhile, a writer at the Gay Alliance in Rochester, N.Y. is not at all pleased with Obama, citing the McClurkin gaffe and Obama's recent endorsement by one of George W. Bush's spiritual advisors, the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church. The church touts an ex-gay ministry.

The gay and lesbian community has the right to be disturbed about the Obama campaign when such individuals are standing up beside him in his quest for the highest-ranking office in the free world. These same people will be asking for more faith-based ministry money to cure homosexuals.

At the same time, the Obama camp extols him as a believer in everybody having access to all rights and privileges.

One thing is for sure, and that is, I am not sure what Obama truly believes. His flexible, unprincipled style should be raising more eyebrows than cash from our very own lgbt community.

Where do I stand? I'm caucusing in Kansas in five days, and to say that I'm undecided is an understatement.

Iowa caucuses gut check

By Diane Silver

Despite my preoccupation with football tonight, I did keep track of the Iowa caucuses. During the game, I kept switching back and forth between the Orange Bowl and CNN, and when I heard that Barack Obama had won handily, I had an amazing reaction: I felt hope.

I don't mean anything having to do with Obama's book title. I don't mean that I've been an Obama supporter and was thrilled by his win. I'm still not certain who I want to support, and there are times when anybody but Obama sounds best to me. It wasn't even the hope that an Obama candidacy might mean that Democrats could really win the presidency this year.

What I felt was deep. It was a total gut reaction. I'm not even certain I can analyze the feeling except to say that for a fleeting instant I felt like real change might happen, REAL change.

I do so want to vote for a woman, but bottom line is that I want to be inspired. I want a candidate who can do more than stay on message.

Where was Barack Obama? Where was Hillary Clinton?

By Nancy Jane Moore

There was one question that we kept asking over and over at the Janurary 27 antiwar rally and march in Washington, D.C.:

Where are the members of Congress and the presidential candidates?

According to the website for United for Peace and Justice -- the coalition that organized the march -- the only members of Congress on the speakers' list were Reps. John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, and Lynn Woolsey.

Where were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards? For that matter, why didn't Republican Sens. John Warner or Chuck Hagel drop by? Opposing the war is fast becoming a bipartisan activity.

Given the current poll numbers, I doubt it's even risky for politicians to be seen talking to the antiwar movement these days. So why didn't more of them come out and take a stand? So far all they've done -- despite the November elections -- is introduce wimpy little non-binding resolutions against the troop surge.

And, after all, the folks who turned out for this event are voters and the kind of people who will work their hearts out for a political campaign. They came from all across the country. They ranged in age from tiny kids to great grandparents. They included military families and Iraq veterans against the war, as well as the usual array of radical groups on the left, and a lot of very ordinary people who are just tired of the war.

They -- we -- were all hungry for some kind of sign that Congress is listening -- we know Bush can't be bothered. But only a few of our elected reps bothered to show up.

One of the better events of the day was a group of well-dressed protestors wearing nametags symbolizing various senators standing on the steps of the Senate Office Building. They made the absence of the real thing obvious.

As marches go, this one was pretty sedate, though definitely large. The Washington Post and The New York Times both hedged their bets by saying "tens of thousands" of protestors, but unquestionably the number was well over a hundred thousand. (Organizers threw around figures of 400,000, but I think that's overstated.)

The original parade route was very odd. We started on the west side of the Capitol Building, and were supposed to walk halfway around the building -- over to East Capitol Street -- and then turn around and walk back the same way. However, when we got around to the other side of the Capitol, the route had been changed, and we all continued on down to Independence Avenue. In the end, the march circled the Capitol.

I don't know why the route changed, but I suspect it was because more people showed up than the police originally expected and they decided it was going to cause too much chaos for us to double back.

Probably the best group out there were the Radical Cheerleaders of DC, a group of (mostly) young women dressed in red who did chants and routines. I found them inspiring -- We need more people with their imagination and energy. Just marching and waving signs isn't enough to get people excited.

The 9/11 Truth group pressed for a real investigation of the events of Sept. 11. Even if you don't agree with some of their conspiracy theories, it's pretty obvious that all the odd circumstances from that date have not been properly investigated. We never seem to really look into crises that hit this country. Are we that afraid of finding the truth?

I was pretty disgusted by the Green Party, who seemed to be using the march to promote their own agenda. They even had a chant about there being no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Sorry, but after six years of Bush, that dog don't hunt.

And there were the usual variety of old line socialist groups and other organizations that don't seem to have changed much in the last forty years. Their rhetoric hasn't changed either. When someone throws around the word "imperialism," I quit listening -- and I actually agree with them that the US is acting like the classic 800 pound gorilla in conducting foreign policy.

A group of marching Buddhists, who beat drums and chanted, were a nice contrast to the politicos.

It would have been nice to have more people -- numbers do make a difference. It would have been nice if we'd all had the energy of the Radical Cheerleaders. It would have been nice if more of the speakers had possessed the charisma and speaking ability to get the crowded excited.

But what would really be nice would be if Congress showed that it heard what we had to say. And acted on it.

Preferably next week.

Could Barack Obama be the real thing, or is he just another disappointment?

By Diane Silver

I am starving for politics that go beyond conservative or liberal, left or right. I am starving for politicians who care more about good government than power. I am desperate for leaders who have dealt with enough of their own hang-ups to act authentically and courageously.

Yesterday, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama announced that he is forming a committee to explore running for president. Is he as good as he seems at first glance, or is he just another fraud?

Read more at Becoming The Change.