Q-Notes presidential 'Primary Picks' series kicks off - with my endorsement

[Sorry folks, no downticket endorsements yet....]

It's getting down to the final days before North Carolina's primary on May 6, so Matt Hill Comer of the Tar Heel gay news outlet Q-Notes is featuring NC LGBT leaders and their presidential race picks. The format features two endorsements per day, one from a Clinton supporter, one from an Obama supporter.

My two cents, from the LGBT perspective:

Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC
Blogger, editor and publisher of Pam’s House Blend (pamshouseblend.com)

Supporting: Barack Obama
Personal Statement: First, it’s safe to say that either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in the White House would be a better advocate for the advancement of LGBT rights than Senator McCain; both hold similar policy positions on LGBT equality. That said, I will vote for Barack Obama.

He is openly inclusive of our community in his speeches, not behind closed doors in gay-only settings. Barack Obama, unlike Hillary Clinton, is not afraid to say the words “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual” or “transgender” in public before general audiences. He not only refers to the community by name, but places references to gays in speeches along with other traditionally oppressed groups — women, the elderly, ethnic minorities. Perhaps even more challenging, he has chosen to discuss homophobia before potentially hostile audiences in the pews of the black church. None of the Democratic candidates running for president this cycle have broached this issue.

The Obama site, again, unlike Clinton’s, prominently features LGBT in its “People” section, accessible from the main page. I’m sure that for some voters, nothing can atone for the Donnie McClurkin debacle, but he has proven, in terms of campaigning on the national stage, that he isn’t uncomfortable saying lesbian or gay, nor has his campaign told him not to. His inclusive web hub is a strong boost for LGBT voters seeking more information on how the campaign is reaching out to the community.

But turning from the symbolic to the concrete, only Barack Obama has said that both sections of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed. Clinton would only repeal the section of DOMA that prevents gay couples in legal relationships (marriage in Massachusetts, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) from being recognized by the federal government for the purposes civil benefits, rights and responsibilities of marriage. Barack Obama supports the repeal of the other provision of DOMA that allows individual states to discriminate against same-sex civil marriages from another state if it passes a marriage amendment denying recognition.

In the end, the issue of marriage equality will be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court; the question will be whether a right to marriage for same-sex couples overrides the provisions of state law — as was determined in the case for interracial marriage in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia.

Aside from the above differences, my primary reason for voting for Barack Obama lies in the fact that he does represent change — actually, I’d call it an upheaval — in the incestuous, insular environment of Washington. The entire consultant class and Beltway insiders — who were certain that this election would be over by Super Tuesday — are the problem regardless of party because self-preservation and access to power are the prime motivators, not the good of the country. That is what needs to be shaken up, they players at the table need to change. Hillary Clinton doesn’t offer that kind of sorely needed change in politics.

Our country needs the chance at a fresh start and a fresh approach.

Click over to Q-Notes to read the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Wilmington's Bambi Weavil, CEO and Publisher of Out Impact, Inc.

***

One reason that I haven't endorsed a candidate is because I wanted to be clear that anything I said was a personal endorsement, not one from Pandagon (Amanda's already declared for Edwards, then Obama). And the same goes for Pam's House Blend, since there are contributors on the masthead who may not support the same candidate or endorse anyone for that matter. I wouldn't want folks out there to make any assumptions about a collective editorial endorsement.

The other reason that I haven't put out a statement is because, well, why does it really matter what I think? I'm sure most of you make your decisions based on your assessment of the issues, the candidates, and who will be the best president/councilmember/judicial candidate from your perspective. I just have an e-soapbox, and I don't claim to have wisdom on all the issues.

More readers usually accuse me of anti-Clinton bias (as if I was ever a supporter of Hillary Clinton prior to her running for president). Actually, at the beginning of the primaries, but I was passively rooting (though undeclared) for Edwards, but that ended early on.

But now it's time to cast my ballot and there are no perfect candidates to choose from, and in fact both of them on paper are more alike than different in terms of what they offer measured up to the McSame alternative. However, there is a huge gulf between Obama and Clinton in terms of their political root systems. Senator Clinton did a lot of people on the fence a favor by engaging the same tired, self-serving Beltway consultant class who royally screwed up because they were signed up to ensure a coronation.

However, the whole train of ideas ran off the rails with Obama's wins, and the result has been to take the low road of color-arousal politics and the denigration of the voting populations of caucus and high minority population states. While the tactics have been successful in some respects, the fact that Obama is still standing -- and winning -- is more indicative of how much of the country is simply tired of politics as usual, in spite of their fears about change.