I have to say this, we gays made what happened during this administration for gays possible

[dsc]

I have to admit I get pretty tired of hearing about "Obama has done more for gays than any President". The fact is in the 16 years between 1993 and 2009 gays did a whole bunch to change the attitude of the country toward gays. To site just one example, though I could site several. In 1993 there were seven laws that prohibited anti gay discrimination in employment with only California and New Jersey being among our largest states. By 2009, it was at 20 states with such large ones as New York and Illinois joining the mix.

Gays have worked long and hard to radically change the climate of this country in the last 16 years. One would hope that Obama did a whole lot more than Clinton did since each thing done was easier. A fair contrast is Truman, elected in 1948 and Johnson elected in 1964. Frankly Johnson vs Truman is a whole lot more amazing that Obama vs Clinton. I am not saying that Obama won't do great things for gays but I do feel that anything not done by this year's election won't be done at all. Obama has been down right tone deaf to gay concerns for much of his presidency. His accomplishments haven't been all that tremendous and have come at least as much do to gay efforts as his.

We worked our asses off to make this happen. Often at great personal risk. You insult us when you compare Clinton to Obama without taking into account the immense difference in atmosphere that we worked to create. And yes, it pisses us off.

[dave29]

1. god job :)

.

[VMI Dem]

2. bitin' the hand that feeds you in....3....2....

[Prism]

3. Exactly. It is not 1993.

When a President has 75% public support on an issue, and he instead prefers to stall, delay, obfuscate, and oppose, I want to know what the hell is going on.

We have worked our hearts out to make this country better for the LGBTers who will come after us. A Democratic President in the second decade of the 21st Century should be able to recognize this without any effort whatsoever.

That he does not is deeply troubling.

[newtothegame]

43. I guess I'm interested in what troubles people about this.

First off, I 100% agree with the OP. But I disagree that any of this is "troubling" or surprising; Obama is exactly what he appeared to be during the campaign. It was the voters (and most here on DU) that were so obsessed with "making-history", posting pictures of him in his sunglasses and such, that built him into what people are now seeing is not the case. And he certainly didn't do anything to stop that.

[closeupready]

47. 100% false. "Fierce Advocate for the GLBT community" he told us.

A fierce advocate would not waffle as he has.

[newtothegame]

48. But that's my point. His rhetoric and our blinders told us a story that was completely different...

than the one we would have gotten if we had simply cared about his legislative record/lack of one. We're as much to blame.

[closeupready]

49. To some extent, perhaps so.

:(

[newtothegame]

50. Peace friend. I completely agree that he has been a letdown, not a fierce advocate at all.

My point is that a large portion of Democrats could have spent more time worrying about getting a progressive in the White House and less time about "making history" with their vote.

[muffin1]

52. I agree.

I am as guilty as any of them, too. I was totally suckered in by his soaring speeches, his intelligence, and the fact that he is well-read and well-traveled (I thought someone so exposed to other cultures and ideas, he would surely be an advocate for equality).

The dazzling smile, sunglasses and fabulous wife and kids were just icing on my (fantasy) cake.

Good points, newtothegame.

[shedevil69taz]

75. I voted for him because he promised

to end repeated deployments to shitholes for me and my fellow service members. Instead we get shuffled from one country to the other.

[muffin1]

4. K&R

Absolutely right on all counts. The atmosphere in the country today makes it much easier for Obama to act.
Still waiting, though, for that fierce advocacy.

:(

[Gman2]

5. A rising tide lifts all boats. They have moved all goalposts.

Gays, and minorities have taught us most of what we know about resistance.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Very clear and to the point

I get sick of hearing the lectures 'you guys would do a lot better if you...' fill in the blank. They have no idea how much has gotten done in our own lifetimes, by people we knew, know and are. They also fail to note the extreme levels of difficulty, and the fact that even the face of AIDS did not stop us, it only made us bolder. They sit and smugly lecture when they should be taking notes.

[TokenQueer]

8. Indeed.

:thumbsup:

[BlueIris]

18. Should be taking notes indeed.

Or, you know, examining their own prejudices.

[Jennicut]

21. I don't judge. My husband's uncle is gay and has HIV. It has been a long, tough

road for him.
I live in CT, where it was decided that civil unions automatically become like marriages. Someone pushed to get that, not the politicians. And no one freaked out here. We just accepted it.
Cautious thinking gets you nowhere.

[ruggerson]

22. And

Connecticut is the most Catholic state in the country.

Amazing that the most Catholic region (New England) has the lowest divorce rate, as well.

The highest divorce rate? The (heavily Baptist) bible belt.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

23. MANY Southern Baptists are hateful hypocrites. Almost all are hateful.

I would know because I was raised as one.


Imagine how fun that was for me as a gay, mixed-race, intelligent kid.

:-)


Thankfully I saw the light; unfortunately, the rest of my family hasn't.

[Jennicut]

28. New Englanders generally don't give a crap about someone else's business. We have a rep for being

cold and distant. Many of us are not. It is just that we don't want people in our business and we try and stay out of the business of others. I have lived in CT all my life so this is not a generalization or stereotype. I have lived it. We really don't care what you do. Just don't annoy us. :) And we are religious here, but many of us feel no need to make others aware of it. And I am a Lutheran on top of it. Now go away...I mean that lovingly.

[Forkboy]

40. I live in Mass and that sounds about right.

:)

[Jennicut]

45. The land of the constant beeping?

I swear, the instant you get over the CT-Mass border, the beeping starts. It takes more then .5 of a second to get the car moving when the light turns green, you know? }(

Seriously, Mass is the best. I have been there so many times since I was a kid, it is like a second home. The Boston Museum of Science was one of my favorite places to go to as a kid and now I want to take my own kids there.

[Clio the Leo]

7. I have missed your posts. NT

[msongs]

9. obama wants to drag it out until too many repub votes make it impossible to dump DADT then he can

blame repubs lol

Msongs

[muffin1]

10. +1

:thumbsup:

[Gman2]

11. -1 When will you learn, that is the fake, not the jab.

[muffin1]

19. +1,000,000 n/t

[Hutzpa]

12. Imagine if all the other groups

were saying the same thing.

It's as if the civil rights struggle was done in one term, one

day and one year.

It's not like the Republicans would do a better job than what

this President has done so far.

All of this is negating the efforts this President has made.

[muffin1]

13. Nobody thinks the republicans would do a better job.

That's a ridiculous argument. We want Obama to do what he PROMISED he would do. It's been nearly a year and a half, and soldiers are still in limbo. Soldiers still have to lie about who they are in order to serve their country. Now, the administration has all but said outright that it won't happen this year.

ENOUGH. The vast majority of the public - and the generals - have given their support. We have a large enough majority in both houses. There is no reason for him to stall on this, other than it's just not important to HIM.

[Hutzpa]

14. Whats more important?

The economy or DADT? Not that I'm against gay, but I would think that considering
he has done most of what he said he would do during the campaign, I don't think
heckling and harassment helps any one.

What the gay groups should be doing is to continue their campaign, keep it constant.

[muffin1]

16. I thought he was a jedi master.

Or a chess-master. Or masterful. Or genius. For some reason, when it comes to equal rights, he just can't pull it together. I find it interesting, since DADT is not a challenging issue. It has BROAD support from the public and the generals.

Funny how protesting was necessary during the bush years. Now, from what I see around here, protesting = harassment.

"I'm not against gay..."

[Prism]

17. "I'm not against gay . . ."

I know.

Just . . .

I know.

[Tailormyst]

20. If you have to say it...........

[dsc]

24. The fact is that gay groups would be estatic if the following three things were done

1) passing ENDA 2) passing hate crimes and 3) ending DADT. 2 has been done. 1 and 3 have majority support even among rank and file Republicans and 75% support among the populations as a whole. We aren't exactly asking for a miracle here.

[Radical Activist]

26. And three is in the works, right?

I've noticed from environmental issues that he's a process guy. He lets things work themselves through the normal channels, even if it takes a little while. It took him a while to ban mountaintop removal mining by going through the bureaucratic process, but it got done. Which is actually kind of nice after Bush. We need to reestablish the rule of law.

[dsc]

27. we were promised DADT this year

and it is quite apparent it won't happen this year and thus will probably not happen at all.

[LiberalFighter]

30. There are still 8 months left in the year.

[muffin1]

31. Maybe

you should take a look at this thread by Bluebear. It ain't gonna happen this year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8198893

Obama promises and promises, but he's actively working behind the scenes against it. Better to wait until we don't have enough votes. Then he can blame the repukes.


Repealing DADT has broad support - even among republicans and the generals. We have huge majorites in both houses of Congress right now. Why the hold up?

[LiberalFighter]

32. Like I also stated in another post. IMO religion is a factor.

He needs to break that bond he has with his religion.

[QC]

33. His supposed religion doesn't seem to affect his thinking on any other issue.

War, social justice, all that other stuff, he never says a word about the Christian teachings at which his own policies are so much at odds, but when the queers start getting a bit pushy, suddenly he's Jesusing left and right.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[muffin1]

34. Oh, I 'm sure it IS a factor.

And like every other christian I've known, he seems to dismiss all KINDS of things from the bible when it suits HIM. Does he avoid eating shellfish? Does he avoid wearing clothes made from different fibers? Does he advocate the death penalty for people who work on the sabbath? Does he tell Michelle to walk behind him and stay silent? And what about that garden Michelle has going - isn't growing different crops side-by-side supposed to be some kind of sin? What about 'thou shalt not kill' and 'love thy enemies' - I'm pretty sure there have been some deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan while Obama's been in office.

Nope, like every christian I know, including my own father, the passage that addresses homosexuality is the only passage that is relevant today.




Jesus, save us from your followers.

[onpatrol98]

89. I don't think his bond to his religion is causing the problem...

[Radical Activist]

35. So he has a process.

Like I wrote in my comment, he likes to let the full formal process take its course. You posted to a link that says Obama wants the DOD study on DADT to have the chance to complete their work before taking action. To me, that confirms my impression of his governing style. It's consistent with how he's handling other issues. It doesn't suggest he abandoned the issue.
Maybe he thinks that's the more effective way to build support and ensure that the change won't be easily reversed by a later administration.

[muffin1]

36. There already IS support for repealing DADT.

From the public (including the majority of republicans) and the generals, for chrissakes.
A black Constitutional Law professor has to see a STUDY? How can he not be aware of the discrimination in DADT? DADT, ENDA, DOMA...they are ALL clearly discriminatory. He knows it, I know it, and I'll bet even you know it.

Time to stop kicking the can down the road.

[Radical Activist]

55. Sure, he should do it quickly by executive order

instead of letting it go through a legitimizing process in the Pentagon. Then it can be undone quickly by the next President, just like everything good Clinton ever did was wiped out in six months after Bush took office. Wouldn't that be great?

At least Obama is thinking more strategically about achieving your goals than you are.

[dsc]

56. actually Clinton ended all other discrimination by the federal government against gays via executive

order, and order which survived 8 years of the Bush Administration, but don't let incovenient facts get in the way of a good story.

[Radical Activist]

58. Well, I'm glad Clinton solved everything. There must be nothing more to do

since both issues are just the same I'm sure your comparison is perfectly valid. Meanwhile, Clinton's greatest accomplishments that he brags about were destroyed in six months, and Bush brought back discrimination with public funds to religious groups.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11858332

[dsc]

59. You got caught in a mistake or a lie you choose

that isn't my fault, it is yours. You claimed, inaccurately, that if Obama did this by executive order it would, with 100% certainty, be overturned by the next President. I provided an example, which incidently you apparently accept as true, of exactly and precisely the opposite occuring. The fact is I don't think a new President would undo an executive solution of DADT just like Bush, even with a GOP Congress, didn't reinstate the outright ban. As to your faith based money example, we sure haven't seen Obama undo it.

[Radical Activist]

60. You didn't click on the link, did you?

First, Bush did role back some of Clinton's progress on federal hiring, as shown in the link I posted. So my point is proven.

It was nice of you to rework and distort my argument into something new. At no point did I state, "that if Obama did this by executive order it would, with 100% certainty, be overturned by the next President." So if you're looking for a lie, refer to your own comment.

I made a point that Obama is putting it through a legitimizing process that will result in it being more difficult to undue as many Executive Orders often are. He has done this with other issues, such as mountaintop removal coal mining. If you want to respond to that without straw-man tactics or distorting the record then go ahead and try. Obama is being smart about how to overturn DADT in a way that will stick. There's no indication that he's giving up on the issue other than speculation in a few news articles.

[dsc]

61. If it isn't done by November

and Gibbs is on record saying it won't be done by November, it won't ever be done. There is no way we won't lose seats in November and the loss of seats will end the ability to change is policy in Congress. Since Obama isn't an idiot, he damn well knows this is the case. Congress wants to do it but Obama is standing in the way unless every single, solitary Congress person who has been quoted is a liar. Obama has been caught lying about gay issues, Frank hasn't, Levin hasn't. Thus I believe them and not him.

[Radical Activist]

62. The lame-duck session of Congress meets in December.

You know, the same month the report is due. It will be just as Democratic as Congress is now. Wow, that would be a real good, pressure free time do do it. hmmm...

Your logical fails.

[dsc]

63. there is so way this will be passed by a lame duck Congress

and that would hardly lend it an air of legitimacy. You are nothing short of delusional if you think there wouldn't be a filibuster over this in a lame duck Congress.

[Radical Activist]

64. But, but, but, I thought this was politically easy

and there will be almost no opposition. That's what everyone else says on this thread when they complain about Obama not doing it right away. Which is it?

It looks like your assumption that it won't happen in a lame duck session is based on nothing, just like the assumption that Obama is giving up on DADT.

[dsc]

65. It is based on the assumption that some of our defeated members will respect the outcome on an

election. I am deeply in favor of a change in this policy but if I ran for reelection and lost I wouldn't vote to do anything at all in a lame duck Congress unless it was an unforseen emergency (say a natural disaster or a financial bailout or a declaration of war). Elections are supposed to matter and allowing lame duck Congresses to pass legislation that they either couldn't or didn't before an election nullifies the election. The fact is DADT has 75% public support, and majority support even among rank and file Republicans. that is politically easy. Passing it in a lame duck session shouldn't be easy, and for that matter shouldn't be done at all.

[Radical Activist]

66. That was a cool episode on west wing,

I remember that one. Not much application in the real world though. No one really thinks that way. Remember that it was a lame duck session of Congress that impeached Clinton. A lame duck session is perfect for members of Congress from conservative areas where its more controversial. Even re-elected incumbents will be happy to have two years for people to forget about the issue before the next election. Defeated members from conservative areas will be free to vote their conscience regardless of the politics. It's the perfect time to do it. The excuse for doing it in December is that its when the report is coming out. Sounds brilliant on Obama's part.
I'm sorry that your support for the issue isn't strong enough to approve of such a vote at that time. I think that maybe you're just being stubborn. The fact is, there's no solid reason to think that it can't be passed after the report is released in December and there's no solid evidence that Obama is giving up on the issue. In fact, if it has so much support among rank and file republicans, as you claim, then there's no reason to worry that it can't pass next year with a new Congress. So again, which is it, because I'm seeing conflicting arguments here. If its that easy to pass now then it will also be easy to pass next year.

[QC]

67. I am bookmarking this thread and will bring it up again in December.

It will be a good way to verify your prognosticating skills.

[Radical Activist]

68. What if DADT is repealed before then?

[QC]

69. Anything is possible, I suppose, but that is not likely,

given the administration's own timetable on the matter.

If it does happen, though, you will certainly have every right to crow a bit.

[Radical Activist]

70. Right, not until December. What's the source on that again?

The same sources that kept telling us Obama was giving up on health care?

I see Gibbs saying that Obama gave the Pentagon UNTIL December 1st for a review process. Which means they could finish before then. Or Congress could act before then. Or, as I stated, it could pass in a lame duck session in December. But, I've searched for a while and I can't find a confirmation on this timetable story coming directly from the mouth of Obama or any administration spokesperson. I've grown skeptical of these kind of stories. The only direct quotes I see repeatedly express a strong commitment to the issue, not that you would know it by the tone on DU.

[QC]

71. Then bully for you!

We will see who is right in December.

[dsc]

37. Given our near certain losses in the midterms

any delay past the election is abandonment.

[Hutzpa]

41. You posted a link that is making

assumption instead of stating the facts, Sen Levin says that the White House and Pentagon wanted him to wait
until a feasibility study is done which would be sometime in November, how does that Journalist comes to a
conclusion that it will never get done, that is malicious and misleading just to get people worked up for the
wrong reasons.

I would think that understanding the root course of a problem should be the starting point in solving any
complicated issues and gay rights like any other rights IS a complicated issue just as immigration.

I hate it when folks refuses to use their God given commonsense.

[muffin1]

42. Gay rights is a complicated issue.

Um-hmm. First of all, it's equal rights. That's all...equal rights. I'm guessing you know what equal means. There is nothing complicated or controversial about asserting that ALL citizens deserve EQUAL rights.

I can see where it would take more time for DOMA (not that I ever expect him to try, given what he's already said about marriage being between a man and a woman :puke: ). DADT? Fuck that. Pretty much everyone supports the repeal - with the exception of a small percentage of people we will NEVER win over anyway. THERE IS NO REASON TO 'WAIT'.

[donco6]

72. I hate it when people ignore history.

There have already been several exhaustive studies on this very subject - all of which concluded that allowing gays to serve openly would have little to no impact on any element of the military. The disdain comes from those of us who know that, and who know that ordering yet ANOTHER study is just a stalling tactic to get to midterms.

And really, what's complicated? Gays are already in the military. It's pretty much a no-brainer.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. In their defense, waiting until after November drastically reduces the chance of passage

The Senate Republicans will filibuster and frankly there's no guarantee that we keep the House. Yes they can stick it in a defense appropriations bill or try all these other tactics but it's still going to be an uphill battle. It would make sense to do it now when we clearly have the 60 votes. But I would imagine the President promised blue dogs there would be no vote in exchange for supporting health care.

[FrenchieCat]

15. I agree with most of what you say......

although I fear that based on the results of Ballot initiatives put onto the 2004 state ballots in order to attract bigots to re-elect George Bush, and what the results of Prop 8 demonstrated, the progress that Gay individuals have made in this society as of January of 2009 going back to the Clinton/Bush era were not as sizable as they should have been.

So I understand and agree that Gay folks have worked their asses off to get to where they are, and giving props for the hard work is a great thing, but I personally believe that this will be the banner year in the witnessing of much movement within the federal government that will result in even swifter advances for the civil rights of Gay folks.

...and one day, when history is written, I'm positive that Pres. Barack Obama will be one of the ones that did make a difference, because as it happened for the Black community, although we'd like to believe that we did it all on our own (and I agree that with largely did), we know that none of our advances happened without the important help of others, and that without a Kennedy, a LBJ, rational reasonable judges, and many, many courageous folks, it wouldn't have happened as it did.

I would hope that being grateful to all individuals that are and will make a positive difference in furthering of civil right advances is important, no matter how large or small the contribution. If we each play our part, we can get far indeed. However, to parse as to who made what difference and who didn't at this time may be premature....but of course, who am I to say?

[Radical Activist]

25. I'm not sure I get the Truman reference.

Truman introduced a pretty bold civil rights bill that the South filibustered. He even called Congress back into special session after they adjourned without passing anything. When that failed he used what executive authority he had to desegregate the military.

So, Truman may not have had much success due to Congress, but he stuck his neck out and kept trying in a way that Clinton did not.

Given Obama's emphasis on change coming from people's movements, I suspect he would agree that gay activists deserve more credit for progress than Obama does.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Don't underestimate how far-right this country is going

This country is steadily moving to the right.

Reagan and Eisenhower would be considered socialists by today's standards.

[muffin1]

44. Not on DADT.

Repealing it enjoys something like 75% approval. The time is now.

[Zenlitened]

39. I think that's a very important point:

Gays have worked long and hard to radically change the climate of this country in the last 16 years.

There is so much real MOMENTUM out there. Progressive-minded political leaders can and should be making good use of it.

[closeupready]

46. It was always ever thus. Like with ACT-UP.

who brought Wall Street traffic to a halt. Basically shamed people into taking beneficial action when they would have rather ignored problems. Well, guess what - it worked.

[Writer]

51. Actually, history and culture changed.

And for that reason, equal rights for gay Americans has become an acceptable and humane move for the nation.

To say that any ONE president or any ONE movement caused this to happen on its own is a bit narrow. Certainly, the gay community has fought very hard and that has forced others in the nation to discuss the issue, but an adjustment in the way individual Americans see the gay community propelled this into the area of necessity, not merely vanity.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

54. the OP has consistently honored Clinton for his work on this

Was it error free? No. Signing DOMA was a mistake. I also think that leading with DADT was a strategic error. But as late as 1999 he was still pushing ENDA which he lost by one vote. Clinton for all his faults was a consistent advocate for our issues who made some mistakes. Obama has the appearence of not being a consistent advocate for our issues but someone who has to literally be dragged kicking and screaming to our issues. That said, if the big three were to get done during his adminstration then yes, I would be saying he did a good job. I just don't think we have any shot at all of getting this done.

[Lord Helmet]

82. "Clinton for all his faults was a consistent advocate for our issues who made some mistakes."

riiiight and in 2004 he gave John Kerry some swell advice

:eyes:

[dsc]

84. You have to believe Shrum which I don't

incidently both Clinton's repudiated DOMA which, it should be noted, is what the writer said would convince him that Clinton was telling the truth.

[Lord Helmet]

88. I thought the entire argument was compelling.

You would have to read further than Bob Shrum though.

[dsc]

90. I read the whole thing

It got down to a he said/ he said with Shrum vs Clinton. The rest is basic ad hominum attacks on Clinton.

[Lord Helmet]

91. John Aravosis is a reliable journalist and it's disingenuous to throw him under the bus

to protect the distorted view you have of Bill Clinton.

[dsc]

92. I am not saying he isn't

but he has no real proof and is relying on Shrum and his opinion of Clinton, which isn't positive. He has his opinion but that is all his piece amounts to.

[Dawgs]

81. +1

[Politicub]

57. No one has given GLBT folk anything

Awesome post!

We have worked decades for every right we've secured. And every attitude that has been changed results from us living by example within our families and in the workplace.

We have had politicians turn their backs on us and break promises an uncountable number of times.

But we will continue to persevere and never back down.

[fortyfeetunder]

73. Just an observation -- why DADT is not repealed yet.

Maybe POTUS knows he wants to repeal DADT, but maybe the hold up is to ensure the repeal is permanent. Close every loophole that could reverse a repeal.
Or is there something I missed?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fortyfeetunder]

77. You're accusing me of hating gays?

because I said Obama is probably looking for a way to make the repeal of DADT permanent and irrevocable? Huh?
(Or did you intend to post to someone else?)

[QC]

78. No, s/he's just playing the martyr, implying that those mean ole homos

have cruelly victimized him/her for not signing on to every particular of their nefarious agenda.

Such drama!

[burning rain]

76. Good comparison between Clinton & Obama eras.

While I can appreciate that the administration wouldn't care to forge ahead on DOMA repeal due to the extreme unlikelihood of success, DADT repeal and ENDA would be readily feasible now, unlike in Bubba's day. Actually the difficulty of DOMA repeal now is probably most comparable to Clinton's gays-in-the-military efforts.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. Politicians don't hand anybody their civil rights

People have to fight for them. Politicians are ultimately out to protect their own asses. Maybe they will prioritize one or two of their pet causes above their own poll numbers, but that is it and that's really about all they can do. President Obama is sympathetic towards gay causes compared to the Republicans who are outright bigots. But gay rights is not one of the things that he's putting a huge amount of effort into advancing. And in fairness to him, there are dozens and dozens of equally important causes for him to use his resources and capital on.

But the bottom line is that you can't wait for a President who is going to make gay rights their top priority. Activists need to make it their own priority and get it done. The President will sign a bill when it gets to his desk, but activists need to get it there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

83. All of that hard work would have still be culminated under President McCain, right?

Christ, can't you give Obama any credit? Of course the GLBT community has worked very hard and should be commended. It need not come at the expense of taking credit from other people, as you've ineloquently done here.

[dsc]

85. Name one thing that Obama has done that Clinton didn't

Remember you can't simultaniously take credit for Hate crimes being passed and then say that Obama has nothing to do with DADT being stalled.

[JTFrog]

86. Did Clinton expand medical rights to same sex couples?

A small but welcome step forward.

[dsc]

87. in fairness Obama did do that

other than that there really isn't anything else.