.. and don't put their money where their mouths are.
If you actually believe that gays and lesbians are being denied basic rights that could be addressed by civil union legislation, then I would expect you to be in the streets raising holy hell about this and advocating for it until it happens. But this is rarely the case.
Tell me one thing you have done to proactively advocate for the rights of your LGBT sisters and brothers. And then tell me what you are going to do starting today to get this done.
If you have things to tell me, great, and thank you for your support. If not, then shame on you for your callous disregard for the civil rights of millions of your fellow Americans.
The buzz of the LGBT community across the country has already been ruined, so I don't really feel so bad about yours. Sorry.
Also, it's really annoying when I hear "as a devout Christian, I'm against it." There are lots of devout Christians, as well as many entire denominations, who are not against it, and who don't use their faith as a bludgeon for hatred and intolerance. If you are against it, fine, but don't hide behind your religion as an excuse. Unless you're avoiding poly-cotton tee-shirts and shellfish, and are advocating for public stonings of adulterers and anyone who says "Goddammit," and think it's okay to own slaves from neighboring countries, then you're not taking everything in the Bible to heart. (As you know, that's a very abbreviated list, of course.)
You are entitled to your opinion, but to say that it's because you're a Christian ignores the fact that many, many, many Christians and people of faith from all religions disagree with your position. Better to say, "As a Christian whose church has taken an anti-gay position, I follow the religious leaders I have chosen and am against gay marriage."
Please don't presume to reflect the beliefs of all Christians in your statements.
I guess having basic civil rights extended to ALL citizens rather than just most is "not important enough on your radar." Too bad. Too bad that millions of Americans have to pay tens of thousands of extra dollars in taxes, can't get partners' pensions, don't have the same access to health insurance, and can lose their kids, their house, their job, and sometimes their life just because they happened to be born gay. Oh well, better get on to the more important things.
I think this has gotten so much media -- let the press point out that Hagen is a Sunday school teacher; it has more credibility. Otherwise, it feels like "You're a godless heathen!" "No, I'm not!" "Yes you are!" "No I'm not!"
If you know that the media are already doing a decent job of reporting the facts in this case, then not even acknowledging the specifics of the allegation can help to brush it off as ridiculous.
The first ad is sincere and positive, and I think it succeeds in creating trust. The second ad strikes the perfect tone -- it's way negative, yet doesn't come across like the typical scary-music-black-and-white-scary-voiceo
ver negative ad. The transition to Hagen herself speaking doesn't feel forced, as it often does in these types of neg to pos ads.
No groundbreaking formats here, just really well-executed ads that will accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish. (IMHO.)
Don't forget about Openleft.com -- some of the most level-headed and intelligent analysis out there. The frontpagers are great and the comments are generally quite intelligent, insightful and civil.
That's my first go-to. It used to be MyDD, before the primary made everyone get really mean! I teach in inner-city public schools; I have no need for any more childish name-calling and arguing in my life :)
With any luck, everyone will be calming down here somewhat and we can save all our snark for McCain!
Many of Clinton's supporters are women for whom the fact that she's a woman is a HUGE, HUGE DEAL.
She wasn't playing the gender card at all -- she was acknowledging the pain of her supporters, and trying to turn it around into something positive. She was addressing the elephant in the room -- that many of her supporters were fired up and enthusiastic precisely because she is a (talented, intelligent, and well-qualified) female candidate, and because they were excited at the prospect of a woman president and all that would mean to current and future generations of women. Their disappointment is enormous, and part of the healing has to be about dealing with this forthrightly.
Regardless of whether you think we live in a post-sexist society or not, the fact still remains that no one but white men have ever held the presidency. This is troublesome to many women and men in this nation. Talking about it doesn't seem to me to be "using the gender card." -- Using it for what? She's lost the primaries. She's talking about real issues with her supporters, for whom they are extremely important.
Saying that you want to shatter the glass ceiling so that all girls and boys can grow without limitations seems kind of the opposite of selfish to me; I really don't get where you're coming from on that -- unless it seems "selfish" because as a man, you don't think you are included in that benefit. I would disagree with that premise; I believe a more just society benefits all.
It was a good move in terms of helping heal her supporters' disappointment, which is the most important and helpful thing for her to do right now. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
... and I'm an Obama supporter, before anyone starts up.
We need to get all those stories about McCain's out-of-control temper all over the internets, front and center. It's not so much about him being old as it is him being crotchety. It isn't good to piss off the geriatric voting population, but "cranky old man" works because of "cranky" as much as "old."
Personally, I don't think "flip-flopper" is a good term for McCain. It implies a lack of gravitas that I just don't think will play. "Two-faced," or "talking out of both sides of his mouth," however, work for me.
I know that McCain=Bush seems like it should be a winner, but on a gut level (no high-falutin' sciency-type charts here), it doesn't stick for me.
I think the 2000 primaries were too acrimonious. The idea that Bush and McCain hate each other is hard to overcome, I think, for the same reasons you outline -- it's probably true.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't push the point that McCain's policies are similar to Bush's, I just don't think that McCain=Bush will be bought on a personality level by most people. Unfortunately, that's where elections are won or lost -- do people like the candidate and feel comfortable with him/her or not?
That's why McCain=cranky old man is a message I feel more hopeful about. I think it can resonate, particularly because it is true.
Personally, I don't know why, but the term "flip-flopping" seemed a much better fit for Kerry than McCain on an emotional level. I'm not saying I agreed with it, I'm just saying the term stuck to Kerry because it resonated for a lot of people.
For some reason, I feel a stronger resonance linking McCain to the term "two-faced," or the much less pithy "talking out of both sides of his mouth," which directly takes on "straight talking."