The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Nail to hammer

Re: Nail to hammer

RMG — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:49:35 -0000

sgwhiteinfla: You're right; while I didn't mean to imply that FDR governed the same way he campaigned, I see your point that Obama could potentially have a presidency radically different that the one he promised in the campaign.

JonF: I hope you you are right that ENDA and a repeal of DADT are "slam dunks."

To both of your comments, I would just direct you to the evidence I cited above and say we will see. Again: I believe President Obama will do some great things over the next eight years, but I don't believe moving the ball forward on GLBT issues in any bold and/or substantive way will be among his accomplishments.

Re: Nail to hammer

rockthebells — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:24:14 -0000

Eduardo, every time you put a word like "behave" in quotes, when no one ever told you to behave, you expose how your anger has turned you unreasonable. And this anger over Warren giving a simple prayer is unreasonable to most Americans. And "most Americans" are the people the gay community needs to achieve equal marriage rights.

Now, Eduardo might not like "most Americans" and would rather give them a "shrug and a matter of factly fuck you". But those of us who agree with Eduardo on the substance of gay civil rights but disagree with him on the how to get there think that his "fuck you" is the very thing that is holding gay rights back.

That "fuck you" is what Mayor Newsom gave to the voters of California, and it came back to haunt every gay American when Prop 8 failed, in great part do to Newsom's soundbites.

Those is the facts. The people you hate are the people you need to get what you want. Keep hating, and they will keep hating you back. But if they are engaged, there is hope. Without engagement, things will never change.

Re: Nail to hammer

Eduardo — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:47:03 -0000

@rockthebells

You know very little about the civil rights fight. Do you really think that everything was roses on the side of equality? You've got to be kidding me. You've got to start by reading our very own Dr MLK Jr. Not to talk about Malcom X.

And Harvey Milk? I mean, did you watch the movie? Did you watch the many times he took in the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment of ... San Francisco. How angry he was sometimes and how well, fierce, he was?

Obama is not my enemy. I worked for him, I donated to his campaign, I talked many times over to many people at work and in the Cuban community --not liberal at all-- and I support him. For many, many, many reasons beyond gay issues. You see, being gay is only part of who I am.

But I don't have to glorify him and just shut up when I don't like something he does. I felt hurt by his choice but really even more bothered by his answer in the press conference. I found the "fierce" thing really self-servicing and actually funny. That's what we do in America with our leaders.

But I am actually angrier at the people that just want us to "behave" to not being inconvenient, to just be nice and wait to be accepted. What do you guys really know?

And one more thing, when TNC asks for a spokesman for gay people, maybe we can appoint you, since you know all the answers and find the community so lacking in leadership.

Re: Nail to hammer

rockthebells — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:19:32 -0000

Eduardo, the shrug and the fuck you that you feel so righteous in giving is the very thing that will make gay rights impossible in the country.

The more you tell people to go fuck themselves, the more they believe you are unreasonable and the less they are likely to be sympathetic with the cause.

This is the way things work. Always have.

The Civil Rights Bills in the 60's would have never passed before the middle in America saw the racists turn their hoses on blacks and whites peacefully marching for equality. When the middle saw that, they supported Civil Rights.

But if the gay community thinks they can win the middle while simultaneously telling them to go fuck themselves, they're fools.

For the record, I don't believe Warren is a moderate, but rather that when the middle of the country looks at him next to Newsom, or the over-the-top reaction to Warren giving a simple prayer that has nothing at all to do with gay rights, then he looks moderate to them.

And that is a problem for those of us who believe that all Americans should be equal.

This Warren thing really has shown how a lot of people in the gay community just don't get it. It's clear that if they put all this energy into fighting against Prop 8 that there would have been a good chance it wouldn't have passed. Instead, there was a lack of cohesion and a huge amount of dissembling in the campaign against Prop 8.

Obama isn't your enemy. Neither are people like myself who worked against Prop 8, but aren't going to sit here and watch this ridiculous outrage over a simple prayer and pretend like it's justified. Clearly there is a lack of leadership that has even a clue about how to get where the gay community wants to go.

It's been clear for along time that half of America doesn't understand what gay people are all about, and needs to be educated. And that education - which we can see in the young - will help change minds.

But it's become more clear during this Warren thing that the gay community - or at least the vocal faction on the interwebs - doesn't understand the middle of America at all. And seems to not care. There are only a lot of go fuck yourselves.

But go fuck yourselves aren't going to help get that vote over 50%, in fact it's going to do a lot of harm. And that's a tragedy. Am I wrong to think the gay community needs a leader who can stand up and speak to the middle of America? I guess calling for a spokesman on Coates site just shows how out of touch I am...but you'd think in a year when Prop 8 passed, and Harvey Milk got so much press and might very well win an Oscar, there would be more real leadership out there that could channel the anger and rage and turn it into something that would help the cause...

Re: Nail to hammer

eduardo — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:55:05 -0000

But since many and America agree with General Pace in that homosexuality is immoral I guess I am hysteric and extreme in pointing out that I don't think that neither Clinton nor Obama were too fierce there. And that I might be a little bit skeptic in our President-elect in his commitment to gay rights.

Re: Nail to hammer

Eduardo — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:52:11 -0000

Well, I googled the homosexuality is immoral thing and this is what I found:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-obama-and-gays/

Really, go and read it.

Both Clinton and Obama were so fierce that in comparison John Warner the old fart Republican from fucking Virginia looked like Newsom The Radical.

Re: Nail to hammer

Eduardo — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:35:36 -0000

@rockthebelts,

I am really not interested in starting a discussion with you. What are you going to say to a guy that thinks that Rick Gays-Are-Pedophiles Warren is the moderate and we are extreme because we want equal rights? I don't know. A shrug and a matter-of-factly fuck you, maybe?

For the rest, and for the record. When I say we have to defeat RW I mean we need to gain full civil rights for gays. That's all. It doesn't mean that RW can't have his megachurch and his books and his fame and be pals with Barack The Fierce or anything else. It is defeating him when it comes to gay rights.

Re: Nail to hammer

rockthebells — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:32:04 -0000

I say you are over-the-top, Jimmy, because of reactions like the one in your post above. Should gays say this and should gays say that? That is the kind of over-the-top stuff I'm talking about.

No one says you have to agree with what Rick Warren says. Or even like it. So stop pretending like that's what's being asked of you. Because your hyperbole just makes you look like a hysteric, and again, makes you looks unreasonable, and the more unreasonable you look, the more you're never going to win over the middle.

If the gay community is happy to live with civil marriages in some states, and gay marriage only in a few, keep up the hysterics. Keep acting like Rick Warren giving a prayer that has nothing bad to say about gay people is a second holocaust. Keep comparing Warren to Nazis. Because that kind of over-the-top stuff is just gonna turn the middle against you.

California voted against gay marriage. If that's gonna happen in California, it's gonna happen everywhere else.

Does anyone realize that the only way to win equality in California is to win over the middle? Is this unclear to everybody?

Let's hope that Jerry Brown can get the thing overturned.

But if not, someone is going to have to act like a grownup and try to win over the middle. Because out there in the middle, they see Mayor Newsom on one side and Rick Warren on the other. And like it or not, in the eyes of the middle, Warren is the moderate of that group. I'm not saying he's a moderate, he's not. But it's about perception. And to the middle in America, you put Warren next to Newsom, and Warren looks pretty damn good. Like it or not, that's the reality.

Until the gay community can learn that hysterics just scares otherwise sympathetic people away, and until they can find a way to be reasonable in the face of what most Americans believe is a perfectly legitimate religious difference, nothing is going to change.

Melissa Ethridge sharing a stage with Rick Warren last night is a beginning. Because the reality is that a lot of America is (ignorantly, yes) afraid of gay people. That's the way it is. And until more of those people who are afraid are educated, not much is going to change.

Re: Nail to hammer

jimmy — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:20:57 -0000

kris, Obama using the word 'fierce' is quite ironic, too. He has no window into gay culture to even know how the use of that expression would sound to us. But, we already know that by the pick of Warren. Not to essentialize (too much), but gay culture has always been wrapped up with literature, film, theater, liturgy (even!), and pageantry. (The Wizard of Oz is totally queer, as is Peppermint Patty.) To not foresee that Warren's presence at such a thickly symbolic and historic ritual would be offensive is proof that Obama is not 'fierce,' but tone deaf.

RMG, thanks for helping me give shape to what have been my inchoate, gut feelings for quite some time now. When Obama was asked, after a statement by General Pace, if homosexuals were immoral, and he couldn't answer the question...it started then. Donnie McClurkin was next. Now we're on repeat.

And all this machiavellian theorizing about Obama? What, now that Karl Rove isn't playing, we're supposed to think that Obama has some grand scheme at work here to advance civil and human rights for minorities? He's boilerplate Democrat with excellent rhetoric. For a time, as a result, triangulation just won't seem like triangulation. It will come with a fancy ribbon. And we'll 'read' that box like we did Oz, and know it's pretty much empty for us.

So let's march on Washington again.

Re: Nail to hammer

jimmy — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:04:57 -0000

rockthebells,

How do we "heal these rifts"? This common ground that Obama speaks about...where is it?

Warren says gay relationships are like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. What's the common ground?

Should gays say, "Yeah, you know, we're like pedophiles, but nothing like incest or polygamy." Or, "Let's agree that we're like incestuous folks, but not pedophiles or polygamists." Or, "You know, I just can't stop adding people to my household, racking up so many spouses I could join a FLDS compound, except for the fact that I suffer from teh gay."

Really, what is the common ground? And WE'RE the ones that are over the top? Seriously: "Nigga please!"

Re: Nail to hammer

kris — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:31:03 -0000

I never expected Obama or Democrats to do anything for us gays, and I still don't. My message to him and those who agree with this choice: We'll fight our own battles, thanks. But that being the case, just leave us alone and don't go out of your way to insult us or rub salt into the recent wounds, and don't use us to make yourselves feel all progressive and liberal, giving lip-service to gays one day, but telling us to take a hike the next day when the rubber hits the road. And don't pretend to support us; don't bother making promises or use shallow rhetoric about being 'fierce'. 'Fierce' is standing up against the majority, not the minority. 'Fierce' is inviting Warren to another public debate and dialogue session, 'fierce' is condemning his homophobic statements while praising his humane ones, not giving him an honored position at the dais. In short, just let us gays go. And while you're at it, why not invite a Holocaust denier to speak at the Inauguration, since it's so important to include the views of those who disagree with you? I'm certain there's some demographic somewhere who would be pleased by this choice, since principle no longer matters, just our new religion, pragmatism, or inclusivity, or whatever it is.

Anyhow, Obama's not an idiot and must have had an idea of how this would play out in the media(which, with a few exceptions, fail to point out Warren's comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia; in my book this is the clincher, the horrible thing the Warren doesn't even bother to rescind or apologize for) and for gays in general. So, with this gay equivalent of the Sista Souljah moment we are getting tagged with the same call of 'hysteria' that most minority groups have had when they don't appreciate getting insulted. 'Dumb, impractical gays shut up already' is the message I'm getting here. But it's all good. The thing is, I bless every day the fact that God implanted me with 'the gay'. Because we gays learn early on to read signals that others don't see, we often have a gift of discernment. I voted for Obama but I don't kid myself. Wiretapping, torture; when it comes down to it, we can be practical about all kinds of things, can't we? As long as the economy is good.

Re: Nail to hammer

rockthebells — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:34:48 -0000

The reason that Barney Frank is the only congressman to condemn having Warren speak is because most of America doesn't think it is a big deal and think the reaction among certain parts of the gay community is way over-the-top.

There are times when the Far Left seems as bad as the Far Right. The Far Left hates the Far Right just as much as the Far Right hates the Far Left. These two sides keep each other in business.

Sorry, but when people say they need to DEFEAT Warren they just show why they don't get it. You simply don't convince people with that kind of slash and burn politics, you just don't.

The gay community needs to learn from the Prop 8 debacle - it's no longer about what's right, it's about convincing 51% of the population to vote for what's right.

The antics of Mayor Newsom gave the Far Right the ammo to pass Prop 8. And the over-the-top outrage over Warren speaking - in a prayer when gay rights won't even be the topic! - is not helping things. Instead, it is telling moderate Americans who might be sympathetic to gay civil rights that their demands are unreasonable.

Shouting that Rick Warren is a bigot is fine. And deserved. But trying to shame Obama to disinvite the man borders on fascist dementia.

The goal needs to be to heal these rifts, not pour more gasoline on the fire.

Re: Nail to hammer

JonF — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:12:55 -0000

RMG,

I don't agree with your analysis on the big ticket LGBT issue legislation. As I mentioned above, I think three of the items will be slam dunks. To be sure I expect some fretting and fussing over them, and the final versions of ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation will probably include some reassuring language for rightwing religious groups so they can comfort themselves that they will not be jailed for "preaching the Bible" and will not be forced ro hire a gay choir director or whatever. Also, ENDA will probably exclude transgendered people from its language (I don't think that's right but I do think it's likely.) As for DADT, public opinion has turned soldily in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, even many Republicans no longer oppose that. The homophobic right will probably whine, but it won't have the support it would need to block such a change. As for the military, that will depend crucially on how good their relationship is with Obama. If they feel they are getting shafted in general, they will put up a fight, if only to embarrass him. But if they feel their concerns and wishes are getting a respectful hearing (in all matters) I don't think they will do much more than utter some pro-forma and not very strident objections and then let it go.

I do agree that the DOMA is unlikely to changed any time soon. Some nibbling around the edges maybe with things like healthcare (where equal treatment for gay partnerships can be rolled into and obscured by much larger reforms), maybe some symbolic gestures (e.g., the Obamas attend a same sex wedding) and that will be about it.

Re: Nail to hammer

Eduardo — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:37:10 -0000

@sgwhiteinfla

"If you don't realize that its probably because you never had to fight for anything in your life"

I don't know. I thought that the gay community was fighting for something as we speak. Also, reaching out to the evangelical community is great. Convincing people and all that. Sure. Warren, on the other hand, is one of the leaders of the gay bigotry in this country. He won't change one bit on that regard just because he pals around with Obama. And that is not what Obama wants to get out of him, trust me. BO is not a fool of that category. Maybe, just maybe BO can get something out of reaching out to him --he definitively thinks he will-- and this may even good for some progressive policies but this will not advance gay rights one iota.

We gays and our allies will have to DEFEAT people like Warren by making our case to people that can be convinced. The stuff of politics and government is complicated and, as TheF79 said sometimes someone needs to be pawned. But let's be clear on this: the success of the presidency of Barack Obama, his political future and that of the Democratic Party and its other constituencies are positively co-related with the struggles of we gays but ARE NOT THE SAME THING. We gays knows that very well --what is it that the only congressman that has objected to Warren is Barney Frank?-- but the other members of the coalitions better understand that too and at least try to understand that we gays can't and will not just contemplate how we are pawned without at least let it know that we don't like it.

Also, to reiterate my previous question: Do you agree to reconvene on Jun 2010 to see how fiercely has Barack leaded the fight for gay rights?

Re: Nail to hammer

Marie Burns — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:42:37 -0000

Thanks. It is indeed a short trek from symbol to policy. This morning, I forced myself to watch ABC's This Week because Joe Biden was on. He parroted the argument that the Rick Warren aggrandizement wasn't important because Warren wasn't a policymaker. In the next segment, know-it-all George Will didn't see what all the fuss was about: "What do you expect? After all, Obama went on Warren's show & said he opposed gay marriage." While Warren's opposition is based on his likening gays to pedophiles and Obama's (probably) on political expediency, the effect is the same: if ye be know the love that dare not speak its name, ye may not marry that love.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

Re: Nail to hammer

sgwhiteinfla — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:26:12 -0000

Joe Klein's conscious

I am curious of what you make of Obama's approval ratings thus far? Could it be that some of the 65+ percent of Americans who think Obama is doing a good job so far are evangelicals? Also what do you make of leaders of the Catholic faith coming out and saying it was ok to vote for Barack Obama and that you wouldn't go to hell or have to go to confession afterward for doing so? Is that anything like compromise? What do you make of Joe Lowery? Do you think he was ALWAYS for gay rights? Do you think he NEVER preached against homosexuality?

That we assign evangelicals this rigid hive mind that can never be changed is just like wingnuts labeling us as lefty loonies who can never protect this country because we don't love it. Its all bullsh!t and people need to stop it. Black folks could have said they were never going to change white people's minds on segregation but they didn't and now we don't have it anymore. Women could have said they weren't going to change men's minds on womens suffrage, but they didn't and now they have a better semblance of equal rights. Gay people could have said they would never convince straight folks to protect their rights to be hired for a job and not be discriminated against. But they didn't and now they have at least some protections against discriminations. None of those folks took their ball and went home. None of them just decided the other side was unreachable.

For all of those saying that Obama shouldn't reach out to evangelicals I am calling BULLSHIT. You don't change minds or progress in this world without reaching out. If you don't realize that its probably because you never had to fight for anything in your life. Well NEWSFLASH change doesn't just happen and its never just handed to you. Its something that you have to fight for and some of that fighting involves outreach. PERIOD.

Re: Nail to hammer

Joe Klein's conscience — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:10:47 -0000

FDR didn't run on taking bold actions. The times required the bold actions and FDR stepped up to the plate after he was elected.

Re: Nail to hammer

Joe Klein's conscience — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:07:38 -0000

Andrew & DB Cooper:

Evangelicals are going to start voting for Obama(or Democrats)? Really? Do you really think Warren is open to changing his mind? Do you ever read his statements? Warren is an unrepentant bigot and homophobe. Hell, he has called for the assassination of foreign leaders. I am curious. What behavior would disqualify someone from Obama's "Big Tent"? Why not invite David Duke? How is Rick Warren, given all the things he's said, much different from David Duke?

Re: Nail to hammer

RMG — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:53:26 -0000

JonF:

Maybe you didn't read upthread on my earlier comment about hate crimes and DADT, so I'll repost part of it here.

"From everything I've read, the main political road block to repealing DADT isn't public opposition or even GOP opposition - it's strong opposition from military and veterans constituencies and those who represent them, like House Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton, who supports DADT (see here and here). Obama has pretty consistently answered questions about repealing DADT by saying he wants to "consult and work with our generals" before making any decisions on repealing the policy, which doesn't make me optimistic - if we need a majority or plurality of military leadership publicly to support a repeal of DADT before it happens, then I look forward to the passage of the Military Fairness and Readiness Act of 2042.

To be fair: I do think the hate crimes bill could be passed in his first term. It's a priority for Congressional leadership, has broad public support, has passed Congress once before and will come up in a substantially more Democratic (and slightly more progressive) Congress. But to me, acting on the hate crimes bill is not the strongest of leadership, because any Democratic president could likely get it done without too much difficulty."

On ENDA: I believe the intra-Democratic fight over whether to include protections for transgendered Americans will be, as the saying goes, too much drama for no-drama Obama. That drama killed momentum on the bill in the last Congress and I would bet will be exaggerated with a greater Democratic majority in this Congress. Additionally, the serious threat that ENDA could actually become law (whereas last Congress it was mainly symbolic) will bring greater media and public scrutiny that will turn up the right-wing noise machine, and the argument won't be "gays are immoral;" it will be "do we really want to make it easier for San Francisco homosexuals to sue small businesses in this time of financial crisis and recession?"

On civil unions: won't happen, and on this one I really don't blame Obama (unless he was a bold, FDR/LBJ type president, and he was pretty clear in the election he wasn't running as that type of president). We haven't had practice runs at civil unions legislation at the Congressional level to see how this plays out, so I don't have much evidence on this, but I think it's fair to say this is the hardest issue of the four to pass, and I've already laid out why I think two others won't pass with Obama as president.

My point on "priorities" isn't that its the same as health care, energy or the economy. It's that as president, you only get a handful of issues where you can use your capitol to push hard issues with strong opposition and close votes. I believe that opposition from constituencies against GLBT legislation is non-negotiable, and (as I mentioned, hate crimes aside), ENDA, repealing DADT and civil unions legislation will be big, angry, divisive fights, because people like Rick Warren will make them like that.

I've taken Obama at his word about a conciliatory, non-confrontational, centrist presidency where you have a really big chunk of Republicans voting for your legislation. He will have close votes, but my gut feeling is that GLBT issues won't be among them. That's why I'm just not sure there is much evidence to suggest "they will get done" when Obama is president.

Re: Nail to hammer

JonF — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:10:09 -0000

Re: it's one more piece of evidence that confirms my belief that GLBT issues (and the very serious, very hard fights that will accompany them) won't be a priority.

There are, what?, maybe four GLBT issues on the table: ENDA, hate crimes legislation, the end of DADT, and gay marriage/civil unions (which at the federal level means repealing the DOMA). I think there's a very high probability that ENDA will pass, that DADT will be ended, and that sexual orientation will be added to existing hate crimes statutes at the federal level. None of these will be "a priority" in the sense that the economic stimulus package or Obama's healthcare proposals will be a priority-- and that's the way it should be. But they will get done. As far as marriage goes I suspect the current stalemate will continue for quite some time, though it would not surprise me to see some nibbling around the edges of the issuse, such as extending the tax breaks for health insurance premiums to same sex couples in either a tax reform bill or as part of the healthcare overhaul. (That could be worded in a way that it would not run afoul of DOMA). Meanwhile let's not start pasing judgement of the Obama adminsitration until it's actually a going concern and we have a real track record, or lack thereof, to judge it by.

Re: Nail to hammer

JonathanU — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:14:06 -0000

By picking Warren to give the invocation, and thereby incurring the wrath of progressives, Obama gets street cred with religious conservatives, without having to actually take any sort of conservative policy position. Very shrewed. Also annoying.

But while am annoyed that Obama is having Rick Warren give the invocation, I am more concerned about the actual policies Obama will push for. Obama has not been a perfect proponent of LGBT civil rights, supporting civil unions rather than marriage. But if he can bring about the end of Don't ask, don't tell, and recognize same-sex civil unions on the federal level, he will have brought us a few steps closer to equality. I say let Obama have Warren give the invocation. Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction, the last word, and he supports same-sex marriage. (YEAH!) How's that for symbolism?

Re: Nail to hammer

Andrea — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:12:34 -0000

@sgwhiteinfla: "This is killing me because the last thing I am trying to do here is defend Rick Warren."

I know the thing you're trying to defend. And you're probably right. No, you're right, I'm sure of it. It's just that I'm not getting to the heart-of-the-matter the way I should (busy day) so we're not really having a proper debate; totally my fault, to be sure. But trust me, I'm right about something, just give me some time.

@KCN: "we have to give credit where credit is due, and the fact is that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which not only has provided 2 million people with lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, but which also distributes more condoms than any other donor government (I believe PEPFAR has procured more than 2 billion condoms over the past 5 years).

Gee I wonder who supplied them with those statistics?

Re: Nail to hammer

KCN — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:51:14 -0000

I have been following sgwhiteinfla and Andrea's conversation about the role of Evangelicals in HIV/AIDS programs with interest. I am a secular progressive and a strong believer in contraception, but I think we have to give credit where credit is due, and the fact is that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which not only has provided 2 million people with lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, but which also distributes more condoms than any other donor government (I believe PEPFAR has procured more than 2 billion condoms over the past 5 years).

I should add that the evidence supporting the role of condoms in HIV prevention in generalized epidemics such as those of East and Southern Africa is pretty thin, since most HIV transmissions take place in the context of relatively stable partnerships where condom use is rare. There is even some evidence that increased condom availability actually encourages people to engage in risky sex (meaning sex with a risky partner) that they might otherwise avoid; this is called disinhibition.

The approach which is most effective in reducing HIV incidence and prevalence in Africa is not condoms or abstinence but rather partner reduction (called "being faithful" in PEPFAR.) Abstinence education has relatively little impact since it is usually targeted to adolescents, but most new HIV infections occur in adults. HIV is transmitted most efficiently when people have multiple concurrent partners; the kind of sexual network that develops forms a "superhighway" which facilitates HIV transmission.

Re: Nail to hammer

sgwhiteinfla — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:14:56 -0000

anon

LOL yeah you're right Obama didn't have ANY obstacles in his way.

By the way, his plan ain't secret. Its right there on the website

http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/

Re: Nail to hammer

anon — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:10:17 -0000

sgwhiteinfla,

Yes, I really believe that. Particularly since racial bias in that subset of voters has very effectively been used against the Democratic party, generally, especially at the presidential level. That's why "welfare queens" bs works for Reagan against white man Carter. And so on and so forth.

But hey, if you just want to pick an arbitrary starting handicap and then give Obama credit for surpassing it (apparently also attributing those gains to his pandering, while ignoring any expected vote gains that should have resulted from this being an undeniable wave year), I guess he's pretty much going to come off as the genius here. I'll just wait quietly to see how his secret plan for us GLBT folks unfolds.