Posted By: John Handforth  on Friday, August 29, 2008

This article makes me wonder about who actually wrote and/or prepared that speech.  I have to admit that I missed it, but had heard glowing reports about it.  Regardless of who wrote the speech, Michelle obviously did a great job of presenting it.

My next question would be about censorship and approval.  Are these speeches approved, censored or altered by the campaign committee?  Who takes the flak if someone later on finds a contradition (or worse) with something that was said in the speech?

After all, Michelle is not a homebody.  We would never be in the same social circle.  She makes far more money than almost anyone I know.  We would both be uncomfortable in that scenario, both of us wondering if I could afford to order from the same menu.

The sad part about this whole issue is that Barack, like most people in America, is not qualified or prepared to lead this Country.  He has some good points and is far better educated than I am, but I don't believe that he has the strength of character to answer that 3:00 A.M. phone call and make a proper decision.

Heck, he has even avoided facing John McCain in any debate that he can avoid.  I find this disheartening, because he is the better showman and makes a great speech on most occasions.  So, you tell me, what is he afraid of?

As I see it, if I don't vote for Barack Obama, I am a racist.  If I do vote for him, I am a fool.  I will just have to think of my children, grandchildren and MY COUNTRY when I choose to vote against him.

Posted By: geoff  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

"Speaking to a group from the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, Mrs. Obama said, "... we must fight for the world as it should be. A world where we work together to reverse discriminatory laws." One of those "discriminatory laws" was The Defense of Marriage Act. Somehow, this did not make it into her primetime TV address."

When was the last time Cheney stood up for his gay daughter? What did Reagan ever do for his gay son?

And talking about "family values," has McCain been mentioning them lately? with regards to his affairs & ugly divorce? How about the censorship of his (ab)use of the "C" word on his wife? funny how that got edited out, too...

Posted By: Art W.  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

"When was the last time Cheney stood up for his gay daughter? What did Reagan ever do for his gay son?



And talking about "family values," has McCain been mentioning them lately? with regards to his affairs & ugly divorce?"



Come on Geoff - what should Reagan or Cheney "DO" for their son or daughter? Should they have ignored the vast majority and will of the American people? Should they have gone against their own beliefs just because a single member of their family happened to be gay? Stop already. Maybe that's what the dems like to do . . . but for some of us, the voice of the 'many' still outweigh the very 'few' - regardless of who screaches louder.



And what made McCain's divorce so "ugly"? Divorce, though unfortunate, does happen. Even the Bible addresses it.



Then, there is really "ugly", like when slick-willy (a sitting President) cheated on his wife by screwing Monica in the oval office with a cigar. Priceless - you just can't make that stuff up. Please . . . note to dems (in favor of gay marraige, gender neutral schooling and abortions - to name a few gems) stay far, far clear of the "family values" topic.

Posted By: geoff  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

Art W: McCain's divorce: he started cheating on his wife (a former model, injured in a car accident, which sounds all too much like the situation Edwards was being criticised for: screwing around while his wife was battling cancer) before he divorced her for someone richer. Definitely family values, there.

Reagan & Cheney: you're contrasting their "beliefs" (whatever they might be: gays are evil, people are gay by choice, it's genetic, they've been indoctrinated by liberal teachers, whatever) with their "family values": instead of supporting their kids, they basically relegate them to second-class status for the sake of their party, to get elected, to cover up potential scandals, etc.

The issue is ultimately not one of morality, but rather of whether gays are "equal": as in rights to benefits (health care, life insurance, etc.) equal to those enjoyed by straight couples. Your constitution states that "all men are created equal" & over time that was broadened to include blacks, Native Americans, women, etc., but... gay people still do not share equal legal rights. And over time, people recognised that "equal" meant that interracial marriages had to be legal, too.

As for the "will" of the majority: to take a few examples: did the majority of Americans vote for the Iraq war? did a majority even vote for Bush for president? And I would argue that the very few (i.e. big corporations and rich friends of the ruling party) far outweigh the voice of the many in America. Among other things, it seems that the majority of Americans are very unhappy with their health insurance, for example, and yet no one seems to be doing much to please them.

Maybe Democrats should stay away from family values; maybe government shouldn't stick its nose into peoples' bedrooms. I mean... who cares what Clinton & Monica did? They're adults, aren't they? No one seemed to mind if Mitterand or Trudeau fathered illegitimate children; why is it that Americans get all worked up over the fun they seem to be jealous everyone else is having (if you have a better explanation, I'd be glad to hear it; otherwise immaturity & puerile interest also seemed pretty high on the list, but... would probably only get me flamed)?

But if we return to the subject of the article, the whole point was criticising the Obamas for supposedly being hypocritical on family values, while conveniently overlooking Republican failures: the "wide stance" guy, McCain, Reagan (he also divorced), Guiliani's affairs, etc. Very one-sided, selective memory. Hypocrisy.

Posted By: William  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

I am unsubscribing from this neo-nazi-con propaganda called Cagle.



Kathryn Lopez is a fucking LIAR

Posted By: dEd Grimley  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

Kathryn Lopez follows up her "insightful" rant on why planned parenthood is bad - an institution that has been heralded as a major advancement in women's rights - with why the opposing party got it wrong. Sorry Kathy, you're the wrong person to be writing this article.



And as was recently pointed out on "The Root of All Evil" with Lewis Black, it's odd that Democrat affairs are almost always heterosexual, while the most anti-gay "family values" laden Republicans have homosexual affairs. These occasionally include pedophilic affairs, as in the case of Mark Foley.



Finally, to William... You've made your point, you don't like this many right-wing blogs. No need to keep posting these, and let's take the high road and avoid the foul language. Kathryn isn't a liar, she's just not a very good writer.

Posted By: John Handforth  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

Geoff,

I like what you said here.  Gays are NOT necessarily evil.  I knew some at work and often played billiards with a Lesbian couple.

Many gays will tell you that it is not about gender; it is about love.

While that is not my particular choice, I liked and respected some of those people.  That does not mean that I approve of the lifestyle, but it does mean that I respect them as human beings.

Sadly, our laws are not set up to accomodate the legalities of same-sex marriage.  I don't have an answer to the problem.  Should they have to be together for five years before they can carry a partner on their insurance?  It is discriminatory, but it does require commitment.  I say that it is discriminatory because I married my first wife 93 days after we met and got insurance coverage for her almost immediately.

By the way, we were together 25 years before a drunk driver got her.  At the same time, I've told my kids not to marry until they've known their fiance for more than a year.  Instant family often follows instant lust.  At least gays seldom have to consider that problem, unless they were able to adopt.

Posted By: Carlos  on Sunday, August 31, 2008

www.pcbullbuster.com

Posted By: Satchel Butterfield  on Monday, September 01, 2008

Kathryn:  Michelle's brother coaches basketball, not football.  Paying attention to the details is the job of good journalist.  Your quick smear is an all too transparent swipe at a good woman for your own political purposes.  Your sloppy writing is made even worse by your inattention to the details of your story.  You lack credibility. In a word, you suck.