OurChart's Bloggers
Our Favorite Sites
Tips?
thehookup@ourchart.com
Jennifer Beals & Tobias Wolff Part 4
March 26, 2008 - 10:03am — editor
A message from Jennifer Beals
This week's podcast is the final portion of the informative discussion I was privileged to share with Tobias Wolff, chair of the National LGBT Policy Committee for the Barack Obama campaign. Here, Professor Wolff answers your questions regarding healthcare benefits for gay and lesbian couples, along with Obama's positions towards the HIV/AIDS crisis. While this is our last podcast, I hope the material discussed in the video inspires more political debate on OurChart. I also hope the series has been helpful to you.
It's been an honor to take your thoughtful questions to Mr. Wolff, and an amazing experience gathering important information that transcends campaign alliances. A government for and by the people, is, after all, best served by a knowledgeable populace that has framed the issues for itself. With that in mind, what other discussions can we have? Who else would you like to meet?
Thank You,
Jennifer
This week's podcast is the final portion of the informative discussion I was privileged to share with Tobias Wolff, chair of the National LGBT Policy Committee for the Barack Obama campaign. Here, Professor Wolff answers your questions regarding healthcare benefits for gay and lesbian couples, along with Obama's positions towards the HIV/AIDS crisis. While this is our last podcast, I hope the material discussed in the video inspires more political debate on OurChart. I also hope the series has been helpful to you.
It's been an honor to take your thoughtful questions to Mr. Wolff, and an amazing experience gathering important information that transcends campaign alliances. A government for and by the people, is, after all, best served by a knowledgeable populace that has framed the issues for itself. With that in mind, what other discussions can we have? Who else would you like to meet?
Thank You,
Jennifer
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
165 Comments
MAD AS HELL!!!!!!
WATCH THIS AND JOIN ME IN BEING MAD AS HELL:
Mad As Hell - Media Bias and Sexism Against Hillary Clinton
NOW DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!
HILLARY WON!
In reply to Rusty & then some...
The Obama campaign has not had to go negative because
the progressive media is doing it for them. MoveOn; Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, The Daily Kos, and most of HuffPo have been attacking and ridiculing Clinton for months.
I think the Obama campaign has been very negative for a long time. There are many examples but take simply the Obama brochures circulated in Texas that made Hillary's universal health care plan look like frightening coercion. There were many other examples...
Obama recently ridiculed Hillary by claiming "She's talkin' like she's Annie Oakley!", imagining aloud what Hillary would look like under a duck blind... Obviously insulting to women (Annie Oakley was a groundbreaker!) and hunters alike: How stupid, Obama! Now, imagine what would happen if Hillary ridiculed Obama by comparing him to a black historical hero? (He's talkin' like he thinks he's MLK!) She'd be slammed into the ground for good.
But ha! HILLARY WON YESTERDAY! So there!
That woman is tough and has tenacity. The longer she fights the more I like her!
Nevertheless, CNN (ONN: Obama news network) and the Washington Post both disparaged Hillary today, diminished her achievement, predicted her demise and pushed Obama. I'm so sick of the media's misogynist, stupid bias...
Here are some vids to watch:
Hillary, fighting for women's rights 13 YEARS AGO!
Hillary Clinton in Beijing, China - September 5, 1995
Watch Obama rip at Hillary and then claim that politics is not about tearing people down but lifting the country up, the entire time maintaining his millions are not coming from lobbyists:
"Shame On Her!" - Barack Hits Back!
How about some truth?
Factcheck.org CAUGHT BARACK OBAMA LYING!
(Not to forget that Obama takes money from non-federal pacs...)
Amy puts Obama in the hot-seat!!
Look: The "non-devisive" Obama is flashing images of his typically white grandmother in his ads!
Obama's "typically white" grandmother found!
and if you want a laugh:
Barack's Definition of a "Typical White Person"
Just sign me, typically red!
Explain something to me, Minnie Z ...
Good morning, Minnie Z
Yes! Hillary won!! Congratulations to you and her.
I actually predicted two or three weeks ago on this very thread that she would win PA by 10 points and roughly 200K votes. Here's why I said that: This primary is already decided.
We have a rolling primary season but a national Democratic electorate that has seen the candidates, heard the 21 debates and has already made up its mind and has broken really starkly along lines of age, education, race, gender, ethnicity. We already know how the remaining states are going to vote (barring any huge missteps from Obama or Clinton) because we know who lives in those remaining states. I predicted Hillary would win PA by 10 points because Hillary won Ohio by 10 points and Ohio is a very similar state to Penn in demographic make up. It's not brain surgery or rocket science.
So here's my question: Explain to me what you see to be Hillary's path to the nomination.
The way I see it is that unless either Obama or Clinton implodes, the remaining contests will be hard fought, but will fall out in a really predictable way.
Guam is next on May 3 and only has 4 delegates at stake. I have no idea how Guam will go, but I'll guess that Obama and Clinton will split them evenly at two apiece.
Then May 6 North Carolina and Indiana vote.
I predict North Carolina goes to Obama by 15 points and that Indiana will be really close. If Obama wins Indiana, it's over, so let's give it to Clinton by 2 points.
Then West Virginia votes on May 13. Clinton should win this big by say 15 points.
May 20 Kentucky and Oregon vote. Clinton will win Kentucky by 10; Obama will win Oregon by 10.
June 1 Puerto Rico will come in huge for Clinton but won't sway super delegates at all.
June 3 closes it out with Montana and South Dakota coming in big for Obama and wiping out Clinton's gains in West Virginia.
So we will end the primary season almost exactly where we are right now, with Obama leading Clinton in pledged delegates, popular votes and states won, and the Superdelegates will have steadily moved to Obama.
Tell me where I'm wrong and how Clinton has any chance at the nomination.
Love and Light,
Melanie
Since you asked...
Always wise to use both sides of your brain!
Both sides now ...
... okay, break it down for me.
Silliness
I thought the Annie Oakley comparison was hilarious. And I voted for Hillary. He was laughing when he said, "I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind." Anyway, I'd bet Hillary would make fun of herself in another SNL skit.
: D
Hillar-Annie Get your Gun!
ps: motaterz, you owe me big time!
Team Dana!
I Bow to you Minnie Z!
Oh, my God, there it is!!
Made my day, thanks!
L & L
m.
Zeitgeist
Motaterz, we were actually on the same wavelength! I was searching for "Annie Oakley - Hillary" just as you were wishing for that piece. I had to crack up at that AND the vid!
Ethel Merman Lives!
I agree, with Minnie-Sota, not Minnie-Zlata on this one. Obama wasn't making fun of Annie Oakley, he was making fun of Hillary's sudden, pandering transformation into a gun-totin' gal from Scranton. Interestingly, when the press asked her when she actually last shot a gun, she declined to answer.
But, keeping with the ridiculousness of this portion of the campaign season, it would be great if Obama and Clinton would sing the duet from Annie Get Your Gun, "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better." Now that I would pay to see.
Love and Light,
Melanie
Groundhog Day, Rocky and Flashdance
The Pennsylvania Primary is finally here! It really was starting to feel like the movie Groundhog Day, and that we were never actually going to escape from Penn (no offense, RoverMom, but doesn't it seem like forever since the last primary?)
I am totally exhausted, but I look forward to spending tomorrow getting caught up with all the OurChart goings on, especially the V Day reports -- it sounds like it was an amazing event. And I love it that JB was out stumping in Philly.
A couple weeks ago, Clinton said that she was "running as Rocky" in Pennsylvania. I was hoping that Obama would follow her lead and announce that he was running as another character (of the opposite gender) from a late 20th century movie about Philly -- I was hoping he would say that he was running as Alex Owens from Flashdance. We already know he can dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4
I'm just glad the PA primary is finally upon us. Even though I've been working for Obama, the whole process is out of the voters' hands at this point and will be decided by the Superdelegates. The weather is beautiful in PA today, so the undecideds should come out in force and will probably break for Clinton. So she should have a good day, but who knows at this point? It will be interesting to see what the overall turnout is (should be huge and hence bode well for the general election) and what the ethnic, gender, race, age, class, etc. breakdown of the vote is and how many new registrants actually voted. And the under-30 vote is totally unpredictable because most young people don't have land phone lines and so can't be polled.
I'm going to have a beer and watch the results now.
Love and Light,
Melanie
we are doing it again...
he will be the next un-electable democrat in a long list. He is too liberal, Mr. Obama makes George McGovern look right-winged.
AND this country does not elect liberals for their president.
We Elect Liberals, not Policy Wonks
Hi Fan4Life,
Carter and Bill Clinton (the first time) ran and won as liberals. After he was elected, Clinton moved to the middle, but remember "The Man from Hope" who ran on optimism, change and the idea that experience is not important (since he was running against an incumbent president and had no experience in the Federal Government)?
The country doesn't like to elect unlikeable Senatorial policy wonks - although Gore actually was elected and Kerry came very close and maybe was cheated in Ohio.
Barack Obama is in the mold of candidate Bill Clinton during his first run and Hillary Clinton is very like Gore and Kerry but with even higher negatives especially after her Bosnia fairytale. Now the majority of all voters view her as untruthful.
Obama will probaly chose Sam Nunn as his running mate and is going to win the General Election - but none of us can get complacent; we all need to work as if this is the most important election of our lifetime. Because it is.
Love and Light,
Melanie
How to elect a Democrat
Now, now, don't give up hope. When the situation is like this, people will consider a Democrat:
1. Energy crisis
2. Rising food costs
3. War in Iraq
4. Declining job market
5. Housing mortgage crisis
6. Bankrupt airline industry
our nation
will put a liberal in the house & in the senate - but not in the White House. People are saying it already. and the polls are showing it. either candidate should be 20 percentage points ahead of McCain - and they are not.
History will write ...
... that there once was a looming Presidential election that promised to be the most important election in any of the participants' lifetime. At the beginning of the nominating process, everyone was sure that the more liberal national party would nominate the well known, experienced Senator from New York.
Of the several other candidates, no one at first paid much heed to the relatively young and inexperienced well-spoken candidate from Illinois -- he had, after all, only served a few years in the national congress and a few other years in the Illinois State Senate.
But it turned out that the man from Illinois was not only a brilliant orator, but also a scrappy, intuitive politician with an uncanny sixth sense about the national mood and the national will.
The nomination eventually went not to the shoo-in Senator from New York, but to the man from Illinois. And many said the party had made a terrible mistake and that the candidate from Illinois could never win the General Election. The New York press was so upset that their state favorite had been passed over that they said:
"The conduct of the ... party in this nomination is a remarkable indication of small intellect, growing smaller. They pass over ...statesmen and able [people] and they take up a fourth rate lecturer"
But it turned out that the nay-sayers were wrong, and Abraham Lincoln did go on to win the General Election of 1860. Read all about it in Doris Kearns Goodwin's brilliant Pulitzer Prize winning A Team of Rivals.
We'll have a nominee tomorrow (if Clinton loses today, which is highly doubtful) or in two weeks (if Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina), or by June 3 when all the contests are over. Then we all have to dig in and get him elected.
Love and Light,
Melanie
It ain't over until it's
It ain't over until it's over. It's only April.
TWUE
so twue, da udder Minnie!
There's really very little difference Obama and Clinton's votes
They are neither one as liberal/progressive as I'd like. But what do I know? I voted for Jesse Jackson - twice. No Democrat has been liberal enough for my taste. But, I've learned to live with it.
The key in NOT letting the Repugnicans paint the Democratic nominee as liberal. This is where the flag lapel pin/Rev. Wright crap comes in. They are NOT issues for me, but I worry that the Repugs will use them as signs of Obama's liberalism. And that he doesn't understand that for people who don't follow politics very closely it might be enough to get them to vote against him. Combine that with:
- The whisper campaign on his religion (anyone still getting those "Obama is Muslim" emails?)
- His wife's mis steps on patriotism
- His "funny" name
- Most Americans know little about him
all this adds up to an easy target UNLESS he toughens up and starts answering negative attacks better.
I'm hoping more and more that Rossi was right and McCain collaborated with the enemy when he was a POW. I've been researching it and I haven't found any strong statements to deny it. I'm pretty shocked that if it's true it's not a bigger issue, yet. I'll just apologize to Rossi now for doubting her.
Your friend,
Rusty
[lesbian humor; what a concept]
+ + + + + + + +
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Obama campaign has not had to go negative because
The progressive media is doing it for them. MoveOn; Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, The Daily Kos, and most of HuffPo have been attacking and ridiculing Clinton for months.
I doubt she can catch him and I worry about what Rove el al are going to do to him in the Fall. He still hasn't figured out how to answer tough questions. It doesn't matter if he thinks they are silly or irrelevant. Joe and Jane America care and he better figure out a way to stop looking so defensive.
Your friend,
Rusty
[lesbian humor; what a concept]
+ + + + + + + +
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
The lack of balance
Comes from the format, not the number of blogs in support of a candidate. A video interview conducted by a lesbian icon is more compelling than a written blog (even one written by Grace or Diana). I made this point when the first one aired and was told there would be balance. I have not seen it. Also, is it my imagination or are these being posted the day before primary votes?
Your friend,
Rusty
[lesbian humor; what a concept]
+ + + + + + + +
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Excellent Rusty. Both of us
Excellent Rusty. Both of us have pointed this out weeks ago, and the OC editors ensured us that they were "working on getting something together" to create balance. We have not seen it yet.
Jennifer Beals has said that she witnessed an imbalance in the amount of information presented on Ourchart between Hillary Clinton's views of the LGBT community and Barack Obama's. In her attempt at creating balance by posing member's questions to only one campaign, however, she created a biased information piece in favor of Barack Obama.
If she had wanted to provide balanced information to the LGBT community, then it would have been more appropriate to pose the questions to members of both campaigns and allow each one to respond. She might even have encouraged more people to vote for Obama in that way.
More important, I wish more celebrities would encourage people to visit their local library or political science department at a nearby college or university to get factual information for themselves.
I have nothing against Jennifer Beals. I love Jennifer Beals. She did motivate me to research the candidates more. Her heart's in the right place. But I take issue with celebrities using their appeal to swing votes for the candidate of their choice, even if they believe they are doing the right thing.
Jennifer Juniper
Hi Juniper40,
Even though I'm an adamant Obama supporter, I -- like you and Rusty -- asked weeks ago that OurChart balance Jennifer's offerings with something comparable from the Clinton campaign. And even before Jennifer jumped into the fray, I asked OurChart to balance the rampant Clintonia with some kind of representation from the Obama campaign. So I absolutely agree with you that the more balance, the better. And -- like you -- I continue to thank Lisa Bang for all she does and for clarifying that they are still working on it. [And, just as a quick aside to Lisa -- the more you communicate with us as to what you guys are up to, the more we feel empowered as members of the OurChart community.]
But it makes me really sad, Juniper, that you say, "I take issue with celebrities using their appeal to swing votes for the candidate of their choice, even if they believe they are doing the right thing." I find this so upsetting because that smacks to me of censorship, and as a librarian, I would think you would be the last person on the planet who would 1. tell other people how they should express themselves and 2. tell other people NOT to express themselves.
Also, I think you mis-characterize Jennifer's offerings here. Yes, she is incredibly appealing, and, yes, she is a lesbian icon. But here she is using her brains and soulfulness to create an intelligent, in-depth dialog with Professor Wolff. Here Jennifer is exactly NOT pandering or talking down to her audience or dumbing down content or sexualizing content. Yes, probably some few people will decide to support Obama because Jennifer is so gorgeous. But as a feminist, do you then want to make the rule that all gorgeous women should be muzzled? Even if they are incredibly intelligent, soulful and caring? And, as a librarian, do you want to make the rule that anybody should be muzzled?
I think OurChart is best seen as a mini-library, with random selections and offerings. I don't think any one person on an opinion-based site is responsible for providing more than their own opinion. Balance will be achieved if everyone is allowed to participate and if the OurChart powers-that-be recognize and repair imbalances by creating equal access to featured blogs.
You and Rusty talk about two aspects of the political OurChart offerings -- content and celebrity power. Until Jennifer's Professor Wolff offerings, OurChart was only offering Clinton information and propaganda. You, Rusty and MinnieZ maintain that when Jennifer attempted to balance that, she more than offset all the Clinton posts because of her celebrity and beauty.
But I think we have to consider the time element here, too. When OurChart became a spin room for Clinton, people had not yet voted in the primaries, and their votes still counted. The Beals/Wolff videos showed up just before and after Ohio/Texas when the primary season was all but over, with very few states yet to vote and with the election already in the hands of the superdelegates.
So I think Jennifer's offerings here are best viewed as a "What is possible on OurChart" template for the future. I was incredibly enlightened and educated by the Beals/Wolff videos -- I think they were a stunning, enriching and unexpected gift. This particular election will play out as it will, but what is important is how we the people use the internet to educate ourselves and organize ourselves to create an informed, active electorate. As Jennifer says in her comments above this very video: "It's been an honor to take your thoughtful questions to Mr. Wolff, and an amazing experience gathering important information that transcends campaign alliances. A government for and by the people, is, after all, best served by a knowledgeable populace that has framed the issues for itself."
You say, Juniper, that you wish celebrities would encourage people to visit their local library or political science department to get factual information for themselves. So here's my question for you: As a librarian, why don't you find out who the chair of the LGBT policy committee for the Clinton campaign is and invite him or her to OurChart. Put out a call for questions for the Clinton campaign and invite the appropriate person to come here and answer them. Be your own Jennifer Beals, eh?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l52zvuv7i6s
Love and Light,
Melanie
Melanie, you did really give
Melanie, you did really give me pause on celebrity endorsements and the censorship issue. I still think it's best to stay balanced, but I suppose most people really don't pay attention to celebrity endorsements anyway. Thanks for the dialog.
Hi Motaterz
"I take issue with celebrities using their appeal to swing votes for the candidate of their choice, even if they believe they are doing the right thing." I find this so upsetting because that smacks to me of censorship"
Hi Motaterz,
I'm baffled that you feel that I'm censoring anyone's views. You're right, as a librarian I fight censorship at all costs. Where in my post does it say that I'm telling people how to express themselves? If celebrities want to attend a political rally in support of their favorite candidate or help out with the campaign that's fine. My point is that I wish celebrities would encourage people to find information on candidates for themselves, while offering balanced information. As a librarian, it is my responsibility to provide all viewpoints to the public.
Let me illustrate my point to you. Do you think that teachers should encourage their students to vote for the candidate that they like or provide information from all sides and let them gather their own conclusions? Do you think that librarians who support John McCain should create a library display that is biased in his favor and put it out for the public to see in order to influence their vote, or create a display with information on all of the candidates?
I honestly think that JB was trying to create balance here with this interview. I don't think she means to tell anyone who to vote for.
It really was just the format that I felt lacked balance. Back when I was deciding how I was going to vote I would liked to have got information from more than one campaign.
Hey, my edit button
Hey, my edit button disappeared. I meant to write that the editors "assured us", not "ensured us." That's what I get for not proofreading... :) Thank you OC ED for following up. You're the best.
balance
Yes, we are still working on it and we've been talking to several interested participants - unfortunately, there a number of scheduling issues involved with an interview of this nature and we just haven't been able to nail everything down yet.
-lisa
oc editor
You make a valid point,
You make a valid point, Rusty. Incidentally, that letter from Hillary addressed to the LGBT community premiered the Sunday before Super Tuesday, if I remember correctly.
yes - there is a very thin line......
but this presentation was one sided, and if you go through the comments, how many women were casting their votes because "if he's good enough for Jennifer - he's got my vote".
Now clearly that is not Ms. Beal's fault, and she has every right to back Senator Obama, but this is showing a very one-sided opinion. Senator Clinton has worked tiredly for the gay community for years, and truly supports all civil rights for all LGBT. This is not presented on this site - only Ms. Beal's strong support for her candidate. Senator Clinton has proven herself consistedly through the years with strong support and hard work.
I am only saying that Senator Clinton's view should have been represented equally and fairly.
That may all very well be true, Fan4Life
And if LGBT support was the only issue on the Presidential agenda, I'd personally stand behind Hillary at every occasion, waving a banner and calling for her support. The reality, however, is that there are many, MANY more issues to consider and after careful consideration, I find Hillary coming up just a little shy. JUST A LITTLE, MIND YOU. I suppose the kicker for me was that little sob in Iowa. To show signs of stress so early in the campaign struck me as foreshadowing.
As for OurChart, perhaps some intrepid fan can comb the site's history and count the number of Hillary threads vs Obama threads. I am absolutely certain you'd find a large disparity in favor of Hillary. The Clinton camp chose how to address this community -- via an open letter. She got out there first which has both its advantages (ex. you get to set the tone) and it's disadvantages (ex. you give the opposition something to rebut).
This is not CNN.com. I am suspicious of the wisdom of basing how one votes entirely on this site. There are plenty of other sources for news and information. Sadly, an awful lot of people are not availing themselves of them. So if you're (the generaly "you" not Fan4life specifically) going to vote based on the information promulgated by OurChart, you can expect not to have a clear picture or the options, issues, responsibilities and response.
That said, I'd still have to say that this site has sponsor far more Hillary talk than Obama talk. But don't take my word for it. Review and count for yourself.
There's a thin line...
P.S. I say again, my signature refers to the subtitle of my book, "Abmelanomia: There's a thin like between black and white"
It's available on Amazon.com if you're interested.
You have to understand
You have to understand something. This website is a community of people, run BY the people - it's not a news website. It's an opinion website.
Most times, it has little to do with the opinion of the blogger and more about the debate and conversation that stems from it. The more people who comment and make their own blogs, and post them - the more representation of the community is shown.
This community is diverse, but very heavily Clinton supported, because "it's time for a woman to be in office", and not because Clinton is the better candidate. If she was the better candidate, people wouldn't say, "because it's time a woman was in". But rather, ignore her gender and stand behind the policies that she stands for.
That I know of, these blogs are the opinions of the each bloggers and not that of the whole website. Jennifer, being part owner, is one Obama supporter - out of what, Kate (I have no clue who she supports - though her and Rose were saying something about thumbs up to a woman in office), I've heard tale of Ilene supporting Clinton, Hilary Rosen supports Clinton, And I have no clue who Leisha supports - she wants the war to end. That is at least 1 out of 4, of the actual owners. And most bloggers on here, who have blogged about politics, are Clinton supporters.
I'm still waiting for a republican blogger to blog. Who said a lesbian has to be a Democrat...
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog
Such a disservice!
"This community is diverse, but very heavily Clinton supported, because "it's time for a woman to be in office", and not because Clinton is the better candidate. If she was the better candidate, people wouldn't say, "because it's time a woman was in"".
Rovermom, you're selling us so short – it just ain't right!
So many women have presented so many arguments, and I know you've been around to read 'em! I'd say the pro-Hillaries are certainly looking at the whole picture. And no, we can't ignore her gender any more than we can ignore the gender of any candidate! NO ONE is "ignoring" her gender! Check the youtube misogynist comments thrown at her, watch the media treat her like hysterical dirt. C'mon! Give us more credit!
Are we back into the "This is a pro-Obama site" argument again
People have called me arrogant. The fact is I quickly become frustrated with spin. Even the most cursory review of this site will reveal it to be HEAVILY Clinton-centric. As soon as one positive word about Obama is spoken there's a public hew and cry.
One's support of a candidate should not require complete disassociation or deconstruction of another. The fact is, we have two highly qualified democratic candidates here. Is the campaign going negative, yes, which, in my opinion, is because the Clinto camp sees it could very well lose -- something I don't think they considered starting out. Watch Hillary's posture on the campaign. She knows Obama is, well let's just say smarter than they average bear. The way I see it, a lot of Hillary supporters are now just throwing grease to try to hang on.
JB would, in my opinion, be remiss if she had not tried to present a more balanced view. This site in particular and probably the lesbian community in general, was incredibly lopsided toward Hillary. Anyone who says different is wearing blinders.
As for her using her celebrity to influence, I like what she says in her remarks in the Advocate:
Quote
While Beals attended four different queer-oriented events in Philly Thursday and clearly wanted people to know that she's backing Obama, she also drew a distinction between supporting her candidate and telling other people how to vote. "I would never presume to tell any community who to vote for," she said. "I can tell you who I’ll vote for. All I can really do is give the information and you can make up your mind for yourself, because God knows, I don’t think I’ve ever met a more self-determined community."
Unquote
There's a thin line...
meffle, how have you been?
Nice to see that you are still here bringing the word. Big ups!
Yeah monsoons, I have a disease
It's called brutal honesty. I can't help telling the truth, at least as I see it. I find one of the symptoms is that it's often a thread killer. When the BS artists get caught up in their own drivel, they tend to skulk away.
Not saying that's what's happening in this thread. The fact it, I enjoy a lively debate with passionate, well informed people. Problem is, too many people are passionate without being well informed. I've been guilty of that on occasion myself.
Scotty out!
(Love your profile pick. I'm a trekkie, more or less.)
There's a thin line...
watch out for that disease
it can land you in isolation. hmmm. so you're a trekkie? Not me, i just love a sistah in a dress-and a red dress, damn. i like that even better.
red dresses
'09
celebrity endorsements
not sure how much of an effect endorsements have when it come to politics, but it's a huge industry.
the psychology behind the marketing tool suggests that the celebrity doesn't have to tell people what to do. telling who/what he/she endorses is enough.
In which case
The problem is the gullible public. Can't blame the tree for hitting the car if the car, in fact, hit the tree.
Look, I'm not so naive as to believe celebrities and spin doctors don't know their power. I'm more prone to dislike a celeb because of his or her politics than be swayed because of their opinions. I'm just saying that the public is responsible for getting more info than that. I, myself, posted something comparing the Clinton vs Obama record that was heavily spun in Obama's favor. Yes, whoever sent it to me knew what they were doing, but its appearance on this open forum was my fault for running with the ball without first checking references.
Plus, don't forget, man or woman, black or white (or other), gay or straight, JB is entitled to her opinion. As a celebrity, people are going to ask her opinion. If she doesn't give it, she's irresponsible and aloof. If she does give it, she's politically aggressive and out of line. It's the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
See, that's why it's good to be unknown.
There's a thin line...
pov
i see the public as the tree, the message as the car, and the celebrity as the driver.
the celebrity has a responsibility not to hit that tree, no matter the car he/she's driving.
i fully respect every celebrity's right to their opinions--and trust me, i'm fully aware of the magic in anonymous genius.
but i posted in defense for that tree... those who are more aware have to protect the gullible, or else we're just as guilty as the driver, if that tree gets hit.
The thing is
It very highschoolish, but people seem to have to pull down another to support their friends (ie: You're ex is evil. It's her/his fault - despite your friends actions), family or candidate.
I am unsure how some feel Jennifer should present interviews from both sides of the debate - because it isn't a job for her, it's something she chose to do. Hilliary had a message posted on this board from her, other then that we don't know if anyone from her camp has been approached...
Equally I am unsure why people are punishing Jennifer for being straight, like it is her fault and her opinions on the topic on hand don't count. Aren't we as members of the LGBTQ community fighting for a voice? In this fight do we have to silence someone else's? Persecute them for not being a member of our community? Wtf?
White people helped the free the Black slaves. They weren't slaves themselves, but their voices and actions were instrumental in the outcome.
Citizens of countries fight for Refugee's rights. They haven't all been in that situation, but that doesn't mean their voice hasn't been important.
Yes, Jennifer is straight. She didn't ask to be born that way, she just was. Let's remember that. It isn't her fault that her marriage is federally recoginsed - but she is an active participant in wanting LBGTQ to have the same rights. Maybe she doesn't understand what it's like not to have those rights, but she knows what it is like to have them; that is just as powerful.
I
agree. Well said.
guess i'd better pull JB down off the cross then...
wouldn't want to persecute her for being straight.
straight
is it environment or genetics.. just seems so strange to me... why would anyone, including Jennifer Beals, choose to be straight?? so confusing. Yes, I guess it's not her fault she's straight. Considering the high divorce rate - the in-laws who don't like the new spouse - jealous mom's - possibility of becoming a single parent -infidelity - the cost of a divorce - the cost of a wedding! - why would anyone want to choose such a difficult and costly lifestyle? Ah, patriarchy.. blah. I know a lot of people want the right to marry.. but why - so confusing!!! So many con's with marriage.
like your style :)
and how you say without saying...
the way the dynamics have been flipped in this post, with regards to straight versus gay, is an interesting phenomenon. it shows how there is power in numbers...with the majority ruling. this site is majority gay, so the straight person is in danger of being oppressed.
one of the great effects of "l word," is that it has inspired so many older people to come "out," while contributing to many younger people having never been "in."
as the visible community multiplies exponentially, what was once a minority will become a norm.
and the power in these numbers will create equilibrium.
just a hunch...
I'd like to meet the woman I named myself after...
Her name is Zlata Filipovic and she wrote Zlata's Diary when she was captive in her own family's Sarajevo apartment during the war, age 11. Minnie was the name she gave her diary. Zlata is now a young woman. See her hold her own while being interviewed by Charlie Rose shortly after being freed (note that english is a second language for her):
Charlie Rose: March 7, 1994
She is my hero: So sophisticated, so intelligent, so wise, so articulate while still so young. Her diary is a great read. I would really like to see what she is like and know what she's doing today.
Another woman would be great to invite: Norwegian lesbian author, Gerd Brantenberg: The Daughters of Egalia Read a bit about her here:
Gerd Brantenberg
Hers is one of the greatest books ever written: It literally turns the tables of sexism on the men. It reverses everything which is funny and empowering at the same time! Gerd was way ahead of her time when she wrote this and is a brilliant and inspiring feminist. I've met her personally and think Ourcharters would love her. Interview her now while you still can!
Inspirational stories from successful lesbians...
Thanks again Jennifer for your very informative, in depth interview with Tobias. I enjoyed it and appreciated your wanting to discuss the interviews on our behalf.
And I would look forward to seeing your future interviews including lesbians who are successful in their careers and/or personal lives. I feel that our community can never have enough mentors or hear too many inspirational stories.
The three women I list below are from a list of many who were featured in a Curve magazine "Top Lesbians" article. I picked these women because I had an interest in their areas of expertise. I would appreciate hearing any challenging and/or triumphant personal experiences they’d like to share about being lesbians and how that fact has affected their lives and careers.
Powerful Lesbian Academics – Curve:
1. M.V. Lee Badgett-Professor, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst
“Also the research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, a national think tank focusing on policy issues related to sexual orientation, race, gender, and family status, Badgett also explores the controversial topic of gay affluence , which she discredits.”
2. Ann Pelllegrini-Associate Professor, Tisch School for the Arts
“This associate professor of performance studies and religious studies has tackled topics such as radical gay sex, Jewish performativity, Madonna, homophobia and faith, and sexuality. Her most recent book is Love and Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance.”
3. Cathy Cohen-Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
“Cathy Cohen has long been an advocate for communities of color, both as a writer and as an academic. A former director of the Center for the Study of Race, Politics, and Culture at the Univ. of Chicago; and from 1993 to 2000 Cohen was a professor at Yale. She was the third African American woman to receive tenure there and the first to receive it in the social sciences. She is never shy about proclaiming her dual identity as an African American woman and a lesbian.”
I’d also like to see lesbians who aren’t as high profile but are certainly successful in their own right. Lesbians who just go about their daily lives facing the adversities that come with being an outsider but persevere nonetheless and progress in achieving their goals and meeting their obligations.
Thanks for asking for ideas and taking your time in reading my suggestions. I look forward to your next interview.
but the interview
was in support of Barack Obama for president. There are hundreds of successful gay people both male & female. Tobias & Jennifer are supporting Barack for president. They want all of us to vote for Mr. Obama for president. Before I ever cast my vote, I like to make an educated choice. There is only one side here - where are Hillary's views and stands on LGBT. They are being ignored by this sight.
Not so much
If you poke around (presumably in the "Wake Up" content section, post-new site format), you will find many, many blogs over the past several months by a variety of our bloggers about why they are supporting Hillary. You will also find a letter from Hillary Clinton herself directed to the LGBT community, which first appeared right here on Our Chart. So one can hardly suggest that the campaign coverage around here is one-sided. If anything, it is historically skewed towards the Clinton camp. Not that I'm complaining, for all that I am a Obama supporter. I'm just happy that we as a community are excited and passionate about who we have to choose from this time around.
Yes We Can suggest...and even state!
So one can hardly suggest that the campaign coverage around here is one-sided...
It's one-sided (statement, not suggestion!). We never had a CELEB promoting Hillary on this site - and c'mon, Jennifer is the most beautiful woman on the series + a great person in person to boot (so I've read so-many-a-time!), so yeah - that's a lot more influential than a posting.
However, Obama showed his true colors (again!) by "insulting" Hillary, comparing her to Annie Oakley. Duh! Annie Oakley was a great shot and ahead of her time. So Obama insulted both women and hunters and shot himself in the foot - again! Guess Obama can't credit a woman who "doesn't play the part" (both Hillary and Annie O!) Imagine the hell that would break out if Hillary dare compare Obama to some person of color in the past as way of insult!!
Celebrity is quite a weapon...
Can't really blame Ms. Beals for using hers to fight for causes/people she believes in--or for the more passive approach that Hillary supporters have taken when it comes to this site.
On the other hand, any person in a position of power is vulnerable to misusing that power to promote his/her own interests.
Ms. Beal's efforts to present a prism through which the LGBT community can view the Obama campaign are admirable, but the overall picture, outside of her efforts, remains unchanged.
Perhaps the distance between the Obama camp and the LGBT community was a byproduct of Obama himself viewing the community through the prism of the standard understanding of Christianity, which suggests that homosexuality is morally wrong.
Many things can be said about the Clinton camp when it comes to the gay community, but amid the missteps, it should be noted that before the Clinton administration, there was no Gay Pride month. Bill Clinton made that declaration at the turn of the Millennium. Hillary was the first First Lady to march in a Pride parade, and continued to march as Senator. Has Obama marched? I saw Hillary at Pride in the Village on more than one occasion.
There weren't really many "out" high-level political figures, either, before the Clinton administration. The Clintons ushered in a climate of change when it came to mainstream acceptance of gays that also witnessed embarassments like DOMA, but this is the natur