I am not a Second Class Citizen

by Derek Harris

When I was first asked to write a “blog” for this website concerning issues affecting the LGBT community, I was a little hesitant. I have to admit, other than going to similar political rallies around one same issue, I have never really sat down with any fellow LGBT individuals and openly discussed political view points. It is my intent to convey my own unique concerns and political view point in the hopes that others realize that individuals of the LGBT community are concerned with more than just social issues based on gay marriage and gay adoption rights. While I will admit that these are big ticket items to me, I look at a candidate’s platform in other areas too before making my choice of who I am going to vote for.

Let’s briefly talk about the big ticket issues, as they are very important to the progression of social advances here in the United States. My favorite one is our military’s stand point on LGBT citizens and their ability to serve the country. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) combines the democratic states of the US and European nations and their armed forces in a collaborative effort. However the US and Turkey are the only 2 nations in NATO to officially have an outright ban on LGBT citizens from serving in the military! Case studies and surveys have found that 73% of our military personnel have no issues serving alongside a gay counterpart, 79% of the American public have no issues allowing gays to serve, 62% of Republicans agree that gays should be allowed to serve, and 85% of democrats believe that gay should be allowed to serve – so why do we still have an outright ban? (Information provided from: CNN, Zogby, Pew Research Center, Gallup)

Looking at gay adoption and gay marriage/civil unions, the issues come closer to home as these are state based decisions. Florida is the only state in the nation that specifically outlaws the adoption of children by gay/lesbian couples. The truth of the matter is that this prevents hundreds, if not thousands of foster children from being placed in to loving homes with people who have the resources to provide a permanent, loving, and fostering home. Professional organizations such as American Academy of Pediatrics support the research, that same-sex households have just as much potential to bring up children in a loving/nurturing fashion as any other household. It was just within the past 5 years that a lesbian couple was given the Foster Parents of the Year award by the Florida Department of Children and Family Services. Why is it ok for LGBT individuals to provide foster homes for our children, but not provide permanent homes for them…

Looking at the much debated and controversial issue of gay marriage/civil unions, people need to understand the importance of the terminology that is used. Currently, civil unions do not carry the over 1500 federal protections and benefits that the term marriage has – which is why the term “marriage” is used and is so avidly supported. I am in support of any term you want to use to allow LGBT individuals the access to the 1500 federal protections that our straight counterparts get! Let’s not forget that these are AMERICAN CITIZENS who are being denied rights and freedoms by their own government. In my own view, I could care less what term you use, as long as we get the same rights and protections as any other married couple has.

Past all of the hot button/big item issues, I too look at a candidates stand point on health care, workers’ rights, education, environment, and economy. My main issue, outside all of the LGBT issues, is looking at the re-authorization of the Head Start program. If you look at the work that the Head Start agency has done since its inception in the 70’s – it becomes very apparent how essential this program is to our society and breaking the chain effect of poverty. For those of you who don’t know what the Head Start program is, it was a congress lead initiative that was started back in the 70’s to provide “at risk” children (ages 3-5) with the opportunity to start pre-k. All Head Start sites provide the children AND the parents with the social support that they need to succeed. These social services range from nutrition, to job training, free meals, health support/therapy, and most of all an education! Graduates of the Head Start program have found to have significantly less chances of teenage pregnancy, juvenile arrest, adult arrest, school drop out, adult poverty, depression, and the list goes on! Graduates of the Head Start program are also found to have higher rates of high school completion, college completion, higher SES/income, home ownership, stable careers, and the list goes on!

Another issue that I’m deeply concerned with is the progression of green technologies and fuel alternatives. Whether you’re an environmentalist, LGBT, or just a person who has to pay for gas, I think we all can agree that paying the price we pay on gas is ridiculous. I moved to Orlando a little over 4 years ago and it only took about $20 to fill up my tank – now I pay close to $n 40. That’s money that I could use on clothes, food, school, and other stuff. America is the international leader in the production of greenhouse gasses per person. It’s time that we become the international leader in the reduction of these emissions and in the progression and development of greener technologies – we are the most powerful nation in the world aren’t we?

Other issues such as healthcare, immigration, the economy, and national security I still go back and forth with. I have yet to hear a compelling argument that completely sells me on any of the plans that have been proposed by any of the presidential candidates. Yes – just so you know I am fully aware of the complexities that these issues carry, and I myself have yet to decide on what I feel is best.

Hopefully you can see now that the LGBT population has concerns and interests beyond the mainstream social issues. But it’s through the exclusion of rights and the constant ostracizing of our community that many times I forget that I am NOT a second class citizen but just a citizen in a nation with bigot leaders and bigot policies. It’s hard for me to get past the social injustices that plague my community when the right to a family and a stable future is not guaranteed and is sometimes denied point blank.

I hope that this piece has shed some light in to the understanding of the political concerns of someone from the LGBT community.

John Edwards: Down but not Out

by Miki Hirama

After John Edwards failed to win the Iowa or New Hampshire primaries, there have been calls for Edwards to drop out of the primary race. However, I believe this would be a bad thing for the Democratic Party and the electoral process in general.

First of all, the departure of John Edwards in the race isn’t going to directly benefit any of the remaining candidates. Although Edwards seems to have chosen to align himself with Senator Obama’s politics, the demographics (mostly in regards to voter age, race, education level, and party ID) of Edwards supporters also tend to be supporters of Senator Clinton.

In addition, many of the people who support John Edwards in the primaries may not come out to vote at all if his name does not appear on the ballot. For various reasons, Edwards has been very good at attracting support from Republicans and Independents, and there is no reason to believe that those people would turn around and vote for Barack Obama in the absence of their first choice Democrat. Lower voter turnout is not a goal that the Democrats should be striving towards and turnout would most likely drop considerably if John Edwards isn’t on the ballot. Lower voter turnout should also not be the goal of any of the other candidates, especially since a vote for John Edwards does not dramatically help or hurt any other campaign. For all these reasons, a vote for John Edwards is a vote for John Edwards.

With all that being said, why are we even talking about Edwards dropping out before Super Tuesday anyways? He has a significant base of support in the electorate. He’s polling in the double-digits, not just in a couple of states, but around the country. His campaign has millions of dollars in the bank and his organization is strong. His policy proposals appeal to almost every demographic. Edwards has everything he needs to be competitive in the contests to come.

Although neither Iowa nor New Hampshire were overwhelming successes for John Edwards, they were not complete failures either. When John Edwards finished second in Iowa ahead of the national front-runner, he made a statement. He made a statement to anybody who would listen, to anybody who would pay attention. He announced to America that he is not a Dodd, a Gravel, or a Kucinich. Edwards did what he had to do in Iowa to prove to voters that he’s a serious candidate for the democratic nomination. The burden is off of him, and now it’s on the shoulders of the American people to seriously consider Edwards as a choice for president and decide the fate of his candidacy. Or at least it should be.

When John Edwards finished second in Iowa, despite having spent much less money than Obama or Clinton, it seemed like nobody really noticed or cared. The media outlets decided that the rise of Barack Obama and the fall of Hilary Clinton were much bigger stories than Edwards’s David-versus-Goliath triumph. Edwards has failed to get the attention of the American public and the American media has failed to be fair to Edwards. And now the obstacles between him and the nomination are much greater than those of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. While the two of them only have to convince the electorate that they are the one best suited for the job, Edwards not only has that same immense task but he also has the equally difficult task of convincing the American people that he can actually win the nomination.

Too often I hear people say that they like Edwards the best but wonder if a vote for him may be a waste of their influence in the nominating process. There are people genuinely afraid to vote for Edwards, to vote their convictions. Edwards already beat Clinton in Iowa, so why does this happen? What does he have to do to become a serious candidate in the eyes of the American people.

The road will be difficult for John Edwards in the times ahead but make no mistake. He’s still in this race, and he’s in it to win. Like I said before, he has everything he needs to be competitive in the primaries ahead. Edwards still has extensive union support around the country, and one of the early primaries is in his home state. It was Huckabee on top in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire… John Edwards winning on Super Tuesday won’t be the craziest thing to happen this election cycle. Even though it’s natural to come up with hasty conclusions about how this primary will work itself out based on the results of only a couple of states, it’s important to remember that it has only just begun.

Hillary Clinton: Victory in New Hampshire

By Ariel Dansky

I find it interesting that anti-Hillary people often dismiss her as the “status quo” candidate, when in fact she is upsetting the status quo by being a woman running for the presidency. When I tell people I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter, I receive a varying degree of reactions, many of them not the most agreeable. Indeed, of the three front running democratic candidates, Hillary is the most polarizing. On one hand, she has the die hard support of many women, older people, and those nostalgic of her husband’s administration; on the other hand, the younger generation, our generation, is mostly opposed to Hillary and largely in favor of Barack Obama (this may explain why I am among the select few Hillary supporters in College Democrats). This is not to say that I do not support Barack Obama – in fact, I think that all three of the front running democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama) are great candidates. However, I believe that at this time, Hillary Clinton is the one who is most ready to run our country.

The Iowa caucus was a disappointing loss for Hillary – she came in not second, but third, with Edwards just a few percentage points ahead. Apparently, Obama’s victory was due to the large amount of independent and younger voters that came out to caucus. In fact, he even obtained the support of a large number of women voters – those which were expected to support Hillary. In all, the Iowa caucus was a significant blow to the Clinton campaign; if she was to have any chance of being the democratic presidential candidate, she would need to come back for the win in New Hampshire.

During the time between the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, two events occurred which may have given Hillary the boost she needed to come out on top. First, at the New Hampshire Democratic debate, Edwards and Obama attacked Hillary on the “change” issue, comparing Hillary to the “status quo” which “attacks” any time one speaks out about change. In response, Hillary stated that “making change is not about what you believe, it is not about a speech you make, it is about working hard.” In addition, after reminding the audience that she helped give seven thousand kids in New Hampshire healthcare, she reaffirmed, “I want to make change, I have already made change, and I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change, I’m running on thirty-five years of change.” Wow. That’s a lot of change. Clearly, Hillary is the most experienced candidate in the running, and she used that fact to her advantage in the debate. Second, during a rare moment at a New Hampshire restaurant, Hillary expressed emotion about her campaign. For the first time, she seemed to have let her guard down and was speaking from the heart. Her display of emotion was quite humanizing, and she won the sympathy of New Hampshire voters (particularly women).

Hillary’s victory at the New Hampshire primary defied all expectations; according to the closing polls, Obama was in the lead by a whopping nine points. Newscasters talked of another expected victory for Barack Obama, speculating on a future with Obama as the next president. However, Hillary came back for a surprising win in New Hampshire, ranking first at 39%, three percentage points higher than Obama. Although Hillary’s victory was not significant in terms of percentage points, it was just what she needed to revive her campaign.

Now that she has won New Hampshire, things look bright for Hillary. With upcoming primaries in Nevada and South Carolina, the race goes on. Now that she has proved herself in New Hampshire, things look promising for her campaign. Who knows? In less than a year, we may have our first female president!

Barack Obama: What’s the Matter with New Hampshire?

By Christopher Chambers

So, I’ve been saving my righteous indignation about how the pollsters got it so wrong until I’ve medicated myself with a cooling off period. Seriously, I can quote you at least a dozen polls, all from well respected official news outlets like ABC, CBS, and Rasmussen that showed Obama winning the nation’s first primary by a handy margin. But then life happened.

Clinton gave her audience what they most wanted to see. When responding to an innocuous question about “How she does it,” she choked up on her response. I hate to admit it but this is what the base is looking for. They want to see Clinton’s human side. We all know it’s there – from those around her she’s a generally likable person with a quick wit. Fortunately for us though, she’s also a cold and calculating politician who isn’t very “likable” (whatever the hell that means).

Barack Obama, although he narrowly lost the NH primary, has been gaining momentum since … well since 2004. He first came into the national scene when he was picked by the Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry to deliver a keynote address to the nation during primetime. With his powerful delivery and eloquent oration, Obama instantly became a person to keep an eye out for among the Democratic circles. Now, post his victory in the nation’s first caucus, he’s picked up several key endorsements – former presidential candidate John Kerry, who has brings along his massive list of potential donors from 2004 as well as a slight endorsement to the Democratic regulars, as if to say “it’s okay to get behind Obama, he’s actually the better candidate than a Clinton,” as well as the Governor Napolitano of Arizona and the 450,000 strong union that represents culinary workers in Nevada.

I could write for pages about anomalies in polling in New Hampshire or the different key demographics that Barack Obama appeals to, or how much momentum he has going into the Nevada Caucus (Jan. 19th), the South Carolina primary (Jan. 26th), and Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th). But I won’t. Well, at least not now. This, my friends, is what we call a tease.

Feel free to look me up.

P.S. In fairness, I feel I must disclose something. I’m the South Florida Deputy Field Coordinator for the Students for Barack Obama. However, I am no ideologue. I am capable of rational thought. Having said this, I firmly believe, for a number of reasons, that Barack Obama is the best candidate in the Democratic field and it’s not just because I’m with a segment of his campaign.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Beyond: An Overview

By Kris Krause

I’m going to spend the bulk of this article digesting everything that has happened since Iowa, as well as what will be happening in the near future. At this time, I do not support any one candidate. I have my preferences, of course, but I don’t think I’ll truly make up my mind until I cast my vote. That being said, I’m keeping the tone of this piece as objective as I can humanly make it, to provide an overview of what’s going on. If you’re looking for a little bit of spin, and a candidate specific outlook on what’s happened so far, just sit tight. Fellow UCF College Democrats Ariel Dansky, Miki Hirama, and Chris Chambers will be posting their views as a Clinton supporter, an Edwards supporter, and an Obama supporter, respectively, in the next few days.

The 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination Process is (finally) officially underway, after almost an entire year of speculation, debates, and polls. All of which, have come across as increasingly irrelevant now that the results are in from both Iowa and New Hampshire.
The belief coming into Iowa was that Hillary Clinton would be unbeatable. She was a machine. She had name recognition. She could even boast better family values than a good deal of the Republican front runners. But in Iowa, Clinton finished not second, but third, behind Barrack Obama and John Edwards.

Then, the media hailed this as the rise of Obama. They called him a true front-runner, and then quickly began to ask how and why Clinton fell apart so soon. Articles were being written about the race becoming a two man race between Obama and Edwards. I even saw one article that attempted to paint Obama as Bill Clinton’s true successor. Polls in New Hampshire showed Obama beating Clinton by roughly 10 percentage points!

But last night, Hillary Clinton earned 39% of the vote, beating out Barrack Obama’s 36%. But both Clinton and Obama received 9 delegates from New Hampshire because their numbers were so close and New Hampshire does not have a winner take all system. So while it is a victory for Clinton, and an important one, Obama technically still leads her by one delegate. I only bring this up because Obama’s loss last night, from my perspective, wasn’t exactly a loss. It just wasn’t a gain, which is something he definitely will need to establish in the coming contests.

For us Democrats, Nevada officially comes next, on January 19^th. On January 15^th, Michigan will hold its primary, but the only top Democrat on the ballot is Hillary Clinton. Any write in votes for Obama, Edwards, or Richardson won’t count because none of those candidates filed the necessary paper work in Michigan. The only real option is to vote uncommitted.

Like Iowa, Nevada holds a caucus. As for what will happen in Nevada? It’s far too early and far too close for anyone to make a sound call. Obama, today, won the endorsement of a key labor union in Nevada. This comes as a blow to John Edwards, who was trying to position himself as the representative for unions. Edwards’ best chance probably lies a week after Nevada, in South Carolina, which is his home state and the only state he won in the 2004 nomination process.

Unfortunately, it’s too early to know what kind of an impact Florida will have on the nomination. Right now, our delegates have been stripped of their ability to vote. Whether or not the DNC stays strong to the current ruling, remains to be seen. But it is being challenged in court, and the execution of baring these states’ delegates or preventing them from voting may be a case of easier said than done. Like all things with this nomination process, a wait and see attitude must be applied.

But regardless of if Florida’s delegates will be able to vote at the convention, the results out of Florida will make the news. A big turnout in Florida could also have an affect on how 2012’s nomination process runs. A lot of attention has been given to removing the extra influence Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina receive in the current system.

So for those of you who wonder if it pays to vote on January, I can’t tell you that it will. But I can tell you, that there is a chance that our primary could be the beginning of something new. A new way for the nomination process to take place, some change in American politics. There is no doubt that change is the theme among Democrats this year. America needs change in a variety of areas, in a many shapes and forms. But this type of change, change in the nomination process, is a kind of change that only Florida can ignite in this country if we give our primary a strong showing. Just something to keep in mind as well all closely watch Nevada and South Carolina vote, and then get our own turn.

After the Florida Primary, I’ll take a closer look at the upcoming Super Tuesday. Until then, enjoy all of the speculation and polls the media will be running wild with.