DISQUS

reef the dog · 10 months ago

I would love to see Obama appoint whoever is best qualified for the job from a progressive standpoint, regardless or race, gender, or sexual or religious preference.

brb915 · 10 months ago

agreed-----sorry John, but your statement sounds a little like filling quotas. Like minded people can come from all walks of life

yawn · 10 months ago

I don't think anyone is suggesting he appoint an unqualified gay person, just cuz. There are plenty of LGBT folks who are qualified for cabinet positions that have been passed over. In the entire 200+ years of the presidency we've never had an openly gay cabinet member. I don't think it's too much to ask.

Chris · 10 months ago

That's not the point. If gay leaders want an openly gay member for commerce, give a recommendation and back it up with a resume. Otherwise, it looks like diversity for diversity's sake.

Akaison · 10 months ago

who is making the argument that they shouldn't be qualified. this is the mind set that you assume. Not what has been said. Have you even looked at the choices being offered ?

clay · 10 months ago

exactly!

scottinsf · 10 months ago

Just like he did with Secretary of Transportation. Definitely the best qualified. Why he's even a republican.

What's that you say? You mean he isn't even close to being the most qualified? Well, at least he's still a republican.

yawn · 10 months ago

Well, obviously republicans are an important demographic that help get democrats and Obama elected.

Oh, wait...

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

renegademom · 10 months ago

I'm off to research who the qualified lgbt contenders are....does anyone know? Commerce has such a broad jurisdiction:

Commerce Bureaus

Bureau of Industry and Security
Economics and Statistics Administration
Bureau of the Census
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Technical Information Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office

mofi · 10 months ago

I believe Richardson's replacement ought to be smoker. Smokers are more tolerant.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

idiot.

tigergrrldc · 10 months ago

The problem with that is that person would be looked upon as a "token" and not deserving of the appointment. Also, it will be said that Obama is weak because he "caved" to the gays, but maybe this is deserved because Warren shouldn't have been chosen to begin with.

Akaison · 10 months ago

And? the real problem is that "progressives" are weak. You are capable of doing now but cowering.

Mike · 10 months ago

How about we let Obama pick the most qualified person for the job?!

John Aravosis · 10 months ago

Oh that's right, we only expect Obama to curry favor when the group is Republican.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

Akaison · 10 months ago

How about you stop posting fake arguments that you know do not represent reality.

Garrett in SF · 10 months ago

I vote for Barney Frank!

RDS · 10 months ago

Sounds too much like gay affirmative action to me. Fill the post with the most qualified candidate. Do we have to learn this lesson all over again?

John Aravosis · 10 months ago

What do you call his other appointments? Suddenly now we don't care about diversity when the gays are the only ones left out? That's too cute by half.

RDS · 10 months ago

I sincerely do not mean to sound insensitive. I would prefer if candidates could be suggested primarily because of their core competency, and then also accomplish the goal of being representative of society at large. Being straight but not satisfied that gays receive the rights we all deserve, I would prefer to avoid an ignorant idiot backlash on a gay candidate simply because they're gay.

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

I agree. And let us not forget that LGBT people are members of the one minority community never benefitting from affirmative action.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

Are the gays the only ones left out, though? This identity politics game can be played out to result in the narrowest categories, and many will feel excluded. Are there any Pacific Islander women in the prospective Cabinet? How about any Muslim-Americans? Indian-Americans? Korean-Americans? Can't we have at least one Basque-American? Why aren't there any Mormons? Or Christian Scientists or Scientologists? And who's to say that at least one Obama cabinet member ISN"T gay or lesbian or bisexual (just not openly so)?

Solomonese's special pleading is futile at this juncture.

Akaison · 10 months ago

Again- please take this b.s somehwere else. Live in the real world for a change.

DarkEyes · 10 months ago

And who made you the moderator? Why are only your views legit and everyone else's b.s? The point she was making is the fact there are several groups that may not be represented.

Akaison · 10 months ago

Its a figure of speech as in don't bullshit because it will not work. And my views are legit because I am not reconfiguring what's being said to make shit up. For example, I don't need to lie as you and others do about whetehr one can both seek a gay choice and someone who is qualiified or that qualified is the only critieria here. Clearly the first pick was about more than being qualified. That's why the Latino groups are arguing for another Latino pick. That's why Obama picked Republicans. That's why he picked Clinton. It's about more than being qualified. You can keep asserting its about being qualified all you want, but thats clearly not the case. Identity politics comes in a lot of forms. Just because you don't recognize manyfo them does not mean thyey are not happening.

DarkEyes · 10 months ago

Well I have a question for you. Should it be a gay male or gay female? If it is a gay female, will you and the others be up in arms because he didn't pick a male? Or does it not matter as long as they are gay?

quark · 10 months ago

Since we are apparently counting folks who are just part black or Hispanic in their columns, do bi-sexuals count as gays too?

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

Akaison · 10 months ago

Don't me so damn stupid.

Look, what you want, and what happens in the real world are two different things.

People get picked for things all the time for reasons that are not exactly about merit. More importantly, no one has said don't pick based on merit, but also pick in addition to for the reasons we describe here.

Everyone in the real world does this. They call it picking on "fit" which means the candidate looks or acts like them rather than actively picking someone who does not.

Jesus- have you ever worked in the private sector? Really?

RDS · 10 months ago

You seem to have anger issues.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

Akaison seems to think that in the "real world" people get picked for jobs BECAUSE they are GLBT. Maybe at Logo TV, but not anywhere else in the "real world."

Akaison · 10 months ago

In the real world, peo get picked for all sorts of reasons after finding qualified people. When you have 5 qualified candidates, and often more as is the case in the real world, you have to find other reasons by which to judge your choices. The game you and the idiot above is playing is that qualification begins and ends the conversation. It simply makes you seem retarted and probably either students or small town hillbillies not used to competition to me. I do in fact live in NY. I don't work at LOGO. I work in a mostly straight, mostly white world. I have learned how to compete even while addressing the realities of the real world. That means realizing its not enough for me to be qualified. I got to have extra. When looking at these issues, and looking at how Obama makes his choices, gays should feel perfectly justified in saying- look at the fact a candidate is gay as a plus toward diversity. That's real life. Obama does it anyway when picking someone because he likes them. He's not choosing that person at that level based on qualifications. It's based on can he hang out with them for a beer after work. That's again the real world of competition. Not the fantasy version where there is just one, and only one, qualified choice. If you perceive of that as "anger" that simply means again to me that you are an idiot about winning.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

"retarted." I'm sure you're a big success in the "real world of competition."

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

clever rejoinder.

Akaison · 10 months ago

I guess you are still an idiot, because the most important thing you got from that post was that I mispelled a word. In the real world, I am working, and that means my response was typed quickly. If it's still not registerting, you aren't my priority. My response is not about making certain to spell check or double check everything I am saying, but to get an idea out there about why your thought process is retarded, and move on. You only reaffirm my first observation of you and the other poster.

larry · 10 months ago

How bout an openly gay latino Sec of Comm....that would tick off the list nicely. Hopefully that person will also be qualified. Gonzales cannot seem to find a gig so he is available.

Rich · 10 months ago

i don't see mention of specific cnadidates for the post. By "just asking for a gay", our leaders are showing their usual lack of political sophistication. this is how "No on Prop 8" lost.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

Rob · 10 months ago

[nods in agreement].... I could write a letter and suggest that a gay person fill the cabinet position. Are our leaders in the gay community so incompetent they didn't think ahead for an answer to the question... "Who would you suggest?"

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

I think Team Obama will probably think that HRC has a lot of "audacity" to "hope" for such an appointment. With Obama and the LGBT Community count on "The Audacity of Nope".

tbop · 10 months ago

“It looks like straight America.”

Well, gosh, don’t gays and straights look exactly alike? Gays don’t exactly have horns or any other visible identifying characteristics. If this is the “logic” then I’d like to see a few atheists.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

atheism is an opinion, not an identity.

quark · 10 months ago

So religious radicals are OK because it's an opinion not an identity?

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

no. religious radicals are expressing an opinion and should have to defend it. john's use of "look like" is figurative, so i didn't get your comment except that it seemed to confuse identity and opinion.

quark · 10 months ago

If it is OK to leave atheists out and not include them because atheism is "just an opinion" then it follows that ALL religious beliefs are "just opinion" and must not be of any concern when judging the appropriateness of an appointee or a speaker at the inauguration.

If it is appropriate to protest the "just an opinion" of someone selected for one role because of that "just an opinion" then it now has become a factor in selecting appointees. Ergo atheism should be given as thorough and complete a consideration as radical or even anti-gay religious beliefs when looking at selections that are made.

Atheists make up a large % of the population and are not represented. This deserves the same level of outrage as gays not being represented ... or if this is not appropriate, then it follows that the protests about Warren are unfounded.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

stunning non sequitur. protests against political or religious opinions are never unfounded. what is unfounded are protests against cultural or other identities and circumstances of a candidate's life. i didn't judge whether the protests against atheism are valid (they aren't if it idoesn't impact the job), only saying that atheism is a viewpoint and shouldn't be lumped in with identity.

Gus Smith · 10 months ago

Ridiculous! What a travesty to democracy to select representatives based on anything other than merit based qualifications. This proGay commentary is as offensive as Bush's religious leanings. Look at the shape the Justice Department is in based on the religious zealots who permeated it. Give me educated, qualified men and women in the open career field.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

Older_Wiser · 10 months ago

If you don't blow your own horn, no one will blow it for you...and believe me, every straight person of every persuasion in DC does this. Why should it be any different for gays? There are plenty of well qualified gays all over the country.

Akaison · 10 months ago

now the next level of retarded. so if someone is calling for openly gay in addition to that means not otherwise qualified. Given your level of critical thinking, I am no going to trust wha tyou consider qualified.

nicho · 10 months ago

There are thousand of people with merit and qualifications. So, how do you decide among them. One thing you try to do is to balance appointments so that as many different interests as possible are represented at a policy-making level. Choosing someone based on race, sexual orientation, gender, whatever isn't bad, as long as the people are qualified for the jobs and there is some balance. It's about making sure that all major demographics have a seat at the table.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

Who's to say, except the LGBT "community", that gays are a "major demographic"? As little as 2% of the population, according to some reliable studies. As I say above: a MULTITUDE of groups have not been selected for Obama's Cabinet. Nor will they be. No matter how much they complain or protest.

Akaison · 10 months ago

And now we get to the point. Who is the say, but you are right? And you clearly have a problem witht he gay part. that's fine, but don't expect us to allow you to contorl the debate. Politics is about being loud enough to get your voice heard. If you got a group you want to advocate for. Do it. but don't whine that others are sticking up for their ability to be at the table.

Older_Wiser · 10 months ago

Leon Panetta for CIA chief? Is this thinking outside the box? I don't think he's gay, either.

Meg Whitman for CA gov? Ouch.

Patrick_Bateman · 10 months ago

I am openly heterosexual, do I still 'fit in'?

Akaison · 10 months ago

obviously not into reality, are you?

I keep saying this, but as a black gay guy who dealt with these same issues with race, it's funny to see the exact same tired arguments brought out on sexual orientation.

Patrick_Bateman · 10 months ago

You, respectfully, are not into sarcasm are you? ;>)

Akaison · 10 months ago

you need a snark alert sign because we are online. I don't hear the tone of your writing here. So to answer your question- sure- but there are a lot of people here saying the exact same thing who are not being sarcastic. They seriously believe the shit they spout. Scary, and unrealistic of them, but true.

Patrick_Bateman · 10 months ago

Ok brother , it's all good. (smile)

nicho · 10 months ago

Yeah -- you still have a chance at 99.9 percent of the government jobs that are currently filled by openly heterosexual people.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

obsessed · 10 months ago

I'd rather have him appoint a Republican senator who would be replaced by a Democratic governor, giving us a 60 seat super-majority in the senate, but don't worry - most Republican politicians are gay so it could be a win-win - what kind of ratings do Voinovich, Specter, Grassley and Olympia Snowe score on the old Gaydar screen?

Skepticat · 10 months ago

Interesting thought. Not that it matters in the least, but Ms. Snowe is straight. And an intelligent independent. I'd love to see her in this administration, but she's doing well enough by Mainiacs that they might want to let her go.

quark · 10 months ago

Senator Collins is widely thought to be gay - she would qualify as a two fer, but she hasn't got anywhere near the brains or independence of Snowe.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

Solomonese's special pleading just looks desperate. I respectfully dissent from John A's argument in this and the threads below.

Akaison · 10 months ago

then so do those of Latino groups. To accept your logic

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

Yes, they do. They look petty and self-interested. And everyone else rolls their eyes at their futile special pleading.

Marc · 10 months ago

I, too, find pleading -- or pressuring -- of Latinos or any others to appoint "one of us" just as unfortunate and offensive. It starts getting ridiculous after a while. What about a disabled person? What about an elderly person? What about a short person?

It seems all about political influence.

I'll admit that part of me actually does hope that Obama will have an LGBT cabinet appointee. I mean, I'm tired of the marginalization; and the Rick Warren thing is an utter and total outrage. However, I bristle at the notion that Obama should make appointments based on group membership instead of skills and capability.

As I wrote earlier: What is more important -- for your pilot to be in your group (LGBT or whatever), or to be able to fly the freakin' plane?

Akaison · 10 months ago

Do you find choosing a Republican because they are Republican offensive? What about choosing Clinton because she represent a wing of the party? This can get pretty silly.

RainbowPhoenix · 10 months ago

Like any gay man, I'd love to see an openly cabinet member, but suggestions for actual qualified people would go a long way toward making that happen.

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

I just have to laugh at the so called progressives who firmly support affirmative action for all minority groups except LGBT people.

If anyone on this website said "Harvard should only pick the most qualified applicants for law school (the ones with the highest LSAT scores and grade point averages) and get rid of affirmative action, that person would be called a "racist". But the same people get so upset when anyone suggests that LGBT people might should also benefit from affirmative action.

Can anyone say "bigot" or "homophobe", yeah you "progressives".

questionauthority · 10 months ago

Who says progressives firmly support affirmative action?

DarkEyes · 10 months ago

I just have to laugh when people like you assume those that are accepted into Harvard aren't already just as qualified. In fact, you do have a very racist view of affirmative action. You sound like some of those idiots who think under qualified AA people get jobs or accepted into Ivy League schools based solely on race. That doesn't happen. You fail to realize under qualified people have run this country for the last 8 years and I don't think affirmative action came into play. Do you think GWB or McCain would've gotten into those schools had it not been for who their families are?

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

I actually graduated from a Tier 1 law school. I know that African Americans are admitted with significantly lower LSAT scores and grade point averages in the name of diversity. Just a fact. Since Prop 209, the University of California law schools (UCLA, Boalt (Berkeley), Hastings (San Francisco) King Hall (Davis) have seen huge drops in African American enrollment simply because of LSAT and GPA standards.

Sorry, but the proof is in the puddin'.

DarkEyes · 10 months ago

How many people do you think have also gotten into schools simply because their parents are alumni? How many people do you think have gotten high ranking jobs because of who they know or who their father might be? I know of a 'C' student/Ivy league graduate who was selected/elected to the highest ranking office in the US. Do you think an AA 'C' student would ever be considered for such a position?

By the way, LSAT scores do not determine one's intelligence. There are several different levels to intelligence that can not be measured by a one-size-fits-all exam. And since you know of the injustice of AA being "admitted with significantly lower LSAT scores and grade point averages in the name of diversity", you are a lawyer, why don't you do something about it? Also, since you are personally aware this is taking place and you have specific instances, name one. State the source of your facts.

Why do you assume the "huge drops" in AA enrollment is simply because of LSAT and GPA standards? How do you know they aren't applying to better schools?

One last point. You said AA are admitted simply for the sake of diversity even if they have lower test scores. Yet, finally you admit the enrollment is down because they have lower test scores. That means they are not getting in because they are not as qualified or they are not passing the tests. That doesn't sound like they are getting preferential treatment to me. Does it to you? Think about it for a while. OK?

Akaison · 10 months ago

I went to a top 15 law. I know a lot of white kids who got in with significantly lower than average scores. I also know many who got jobs despite not being in the top of the class. I worked with them. So, I guess my quesiton is- what's your point?

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

Amen. I guess the point is the puddin' tastes just fine if daddy's rich friends get you a job, but if you get turned down because you don't dine at the right country clubs, that's just your fault.

M_Budwick · 10 months ago

As a left handed Polish Chemist I think we need a Left Handed Polish Chemist as commerce sec. I would not put up a big fuss if Pres. Obama chooses a right handed Polish Chemist. But if he chooses a left handed Physicist I will start a blog and complain and whine until someone like me has a seat at the table.

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

Feel the same way about affirmative action for African Americans???

Didn't think so.

DarkEyes · 10 months ago

Affirmative action isn't just for African Americans. Since you brought it up, do you feel there should be affirmative action for LGBT?

nicho · 10 months ago

Pfft.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

well my question is, what is it about being a left-handed polish chemist that gets you fired for no reason, beaten to death for wanting to date, denied immigration and marriage privileges, vilified by priests and pastors, etc etc? is it the left-handed part or the polish part? or do you think people just hate chemistry?

Patrick_Bateman · 10 months ago

We have too many qualified people from all across the board. We have too many humans, period.

Rob Mule · 10 months ago

He hath borne himself beyond the
promise of his age, doing, in the figure of a lamb,
the feats of a lion: he hath indeed better
bettered expectation than you must expect of me to
tell you how.

--Messenger, Much Ado About Nothing, Act 1, Scene 1

fredndallas · 10 months ago

When pigs fly will homophobe BO appoint a gay cabinet member BECAUSE the candidate is gay and the HRC demands/suggests it. He only picks bigots like Warren BECAUSE Warren is homophobic (among other things) to boost his own ego (what a remarkable leader!") and create better personal cover for his own discomfort about sexual orientation.

I suspect John is being flippant when he says that the Obama group could use this to make amends for the Bigot Warren appointment. That implies Warren's honor was some kind of accidental misstep. It certainly was not. It was intentional, manipulative and effective.

Personally I'm not comfortable with selection of people because of the group they represent anyway. Our country is in big trouble. We need preeminently qualified people no matter what group they come from.

A highly qualified GLBT person absolutely should be seriously considered, but that "status" should count for little unless all else was absolutely equal. And yes, I realize that is probably not the way BO's selections have played out, but I don't think GLBT should be hollering "me too, me too" when such a process is highly flawed.

coolcatdaddy · 10 months ago

Well, we may not get a cabinet member, but perhaps Gays can provide music at White House functions. That seems to be the role that Obama seems to see for LGBTs in the Inaugural and the administration....

fredndallas · 10 months ago

I couldn't agree more. BO absolutely see gay folk as "role bound". That shows you how wonderfully sophisticated he is, huh? Our community needs to make mince-meat of his ego driven "cool dude" mythology. Ain't so!

Soundboy_Jeff · 10 months ago

next up, he'll have us picking out the new drapes for the Oval Office.

see? we're good for something.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

I wonder if maybe there should be a big San Francisco style gay pride parade in Washington DC on Inauguration Day? Backless chaps and boas for everybody. Then maybe Obama and America will get the message?

RainbowPhoenix · 10 months ago

What, that we're all flaming queens who don't fit into society? That'll really help us.

DAB · 10 months ago

Unfortunately, that seems to already be in the works.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6513999&...

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

The leather queens, with their batboys in tow, will "represent" the gays during Inauguration Week.

Soundboy_Jeff · 10 months ago

that's what ABC seems to be implying... it just happens to fall on the same weekend.

funny, I don't think ABC would've bothered with a story if it were an annual gathering of a hetero swinger's club for 'wife swapping weekend'.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

The story, for me, is ANY group attempting to convene in DC during Inauguration Week. The Leathermen don't have great planning skills.

HereinDC · 10 months ago

It's ALWAYS held MLK weekend...ALWAYS.
Actually it's great timing for them.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

Hmm kay, but Baltimore, for example, could use the Mid-Atlantic Leathermen's $$$. And there's a lot of hotel space available there. The point is: planning it for *DC* that weekend has, by their own admission, hurt their numbers.

Indigo · 10 months ago

Lest we forget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg

Soundboy_Jeff · 10 months ago

gotta love Billy Bragg

Indigo · 10 months ago

He's my guy!

Bruce · 10 months ago

Are you actually saying that Obama should not be concerned about picking the most qualified candidate because he should choose someone who is gay? As an out gay man all I can say is I am so embarassed by you.

DAB · 10 months ago

Barney Frank would seem to be an excellent choice. He probably the most informed person in the House on issues related to Commerce. Maybe this was HRC's attempt to push that idea without naming Frank specifically (in case he doesn't want it, or doesn't want to appear to be pressuring Obama for it)?

Akaison · 10 months ago

the embarssment is your either/or view of life. that one can not find both in one candidate. That's a sad commentary on the american thought process. you are not capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time. do you need other concepts broken down for you as well into simple yes-no constructs?

SkippyFlipjack · 10 months ago

Appointing a token gay person to Obama's cabinet means "equality for all LGBT people"? Really?

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

nice strawman. but i'll take the bait. a diverse collection of advisers and ministers doesn't guarantee equality but it's a great start.

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

Amen. One doesn't exclude the other. In fact, it helps.

HelenaMontana · 10 months ago

I really think Obama needs to find someone whose qualifications fit the bill, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual preference. I don't think tokenism is the answer here.

Akaison · 10 months ago

he doesn't make his selections based solely on that criteria in other areas- why all of a sudden here is that hte criteria alone?

Akaison · 10 months ago

one quick example of why your post is bs is that he choose republicans in his adminstration to demonstrate diversity. more over, the whole team of rivals was not about qualifications. it was about diversity of views again. he choose richardson in part because richardson is latino. indeed, even after 3 picks, the latino community said it was not enough. i can easily go on in terms of selectivity involved in picking choices because obama liked them personally versus simply a matter of qualified. your comments are not the real world.

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

This whole "best qualified" trope is a joke when we are talking about jobs at this high level. There are a thousand remarkable people in the country who are extraordinarily qualified for each of these jobs. I'll bet some of them are gay. If you think these people are picked based solely on some idea of "merit" (whatever that means at this high level), you are deluding yourself in the extreme. They are picked based on merit, leadership ability, balance (racial, gender, political) among the cabinet members already chosen, who their friends are, how much they did to help Obama get elected, how close they are to Obama and his people, and a thousand other things that have nothing to do with merit. Please give me a break from this fantasy life you have where people are assigned to jobs based on their SAT scores. If that were the standard, I would be a governor or cabinet member myself.

Akaison · 10 months ago

You can always tell when someone has not went to a top school or worked in an environment where there is a lot of competitiion. They always have these delusional versions of reality that its about merit. I was disabused of that notion in my first year of law school when one of my class mates said he would obtain a high level job because he earned it. Earning it meant for him that his parents had made the connections to open the door for him. I didn't begrudge him that because it taught me an important lesson. Don't fool yourself about merit. Merit is about relationships and any number of things that are intangibles not quantifiable by people who want to exclude you.

Robert Phillips · 10 months ago

And all of this crap is why Democrats can't hold onto power. Thanks to all of you for putting the republicans back in control of the senate and congress in four year. None of you can seem to come up with suggestions for a gay to fill this spot except for Frank. If you can't come up with suggestions then why could Obama? You want to start making gay politicians visible, then start speaking about things they have done. Things that don't have to do with being gay. Things that help everyone. Prove that gay politicians can make the world better for everyone not just the gay community. Then people will start considering them for posts.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

"None of you can seem to come up with suggestions for a gay to fill this spot except for Frank"

who asked? here you can read about his gay transition advisers:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=...

i guess they are only interested in helping other gays.

UPDATE: 'unclaimed' also replied above

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

Umm, what makes you think cabinet selections will even be a blip in what causes control of congress to change or not? I don't think we are limited to politicians in filling appointed cabinet posts (and there are a lot of problems with demanding that people who historically have been discriminated against "prove themselves" at the ballot box before they get a crumb of recognition). So here's a partial list of highly qualified LGBTs off the top of my head: Tim Gill was an entrepreneur who founded a multibillion dollar tech company, David Geffen ditto with entertainment (ever hear of Geffen Records or SKG Dreamworks -- oh, I forgot, they only sell to gay people and do nothing at all for the rest of the world), Roberta Achtenberg started a major national civil rights organization and served as HUD secretary under Clinton , Hillary Rosen (former chair of RIAA). I am sure with time and not too much effort I could think of a dozen others.

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

And I will amend my response by saying, I was just thinking of obvious candidates for Commerce Secretary. I could give you others for other posts if you want to hear them.

KarenTG · 10 months ago

HRC saying anything about equality is a JOKE.

Pyre · 10 months ago

I think Joe Biden, a man, has done more to support women's interests (e.g. VAWA) than Sarah Palin, a woman, ever has or ever will. Being a member of a group is neither necessary nor sufficient for an office-holder to further the interests of that group.

Would appointing Larry Craig or Mark Foley satisfy you? How about re-animating J. Edgar Hoover or Roy Cohn?

There are Army generals, of undoubted heterosexuality, who oppose don't-ask-don't-tell and prefer that openly gay members of the military be able to continue serving their country without discrimination. There are civilian politicians of the same orientation and political leaning -- SF's mayor Gary Newsom, for notable example.

Would someone like Newsom be so bad a choice for a cabinet appointment?

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 10 months ago

Excellent points; which is why crude mau-mauing Identity Politics is ultimately pissing in the wind. Obama is staffing his Cabinet on other terms: diversity of experience, yes: diversity for its own sake: no.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

wrong actually. he actually *promised* to appoint a republican for the sake of diversity alone. were there no qualified democrats or independents for transportation secretary or defense secretary?

Pyre · 10 months ago

Gates isn't being kept at Defense because he's Republican, but because he's the current office-holder and doing well at the job. Continuity, not diversity, is the main benefit there.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

yes and?

Pyre · 10 months ago

Any gay current office-holders you want Obama to keep?

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

yeah, i think he should keep Lindsay Graham. you and karen are weasels. read my original comment.

Pyre · 10 months ago

Lindsey Graham is in the Senate, not in the Administration. Obama can't "keep" or "fire" him.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

weasel, and kinda dumb too.

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

Newsom would be good. His heart is in the right place. Not so sure about the brain, but boy is he pretty. Plus, his prospects in Cal. are not so great now that he is known as "Mr. Same Sex Marriage." Neat idea.

unclaimed · 10 months ago

"no one except Frank"??? How about Hochberg, suggested like two posts down? How about the woman who was a contender for Labor?

Just an outsider straight girl talking, here, but jeepers, if you're going to attack John's argument could you do some homework? Bring some facts?

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

you probably mean Janet Napolitano.

quark · 10 months ago

No, the rules changed after the original outrage and now the person has to be out. Of course not a single heterosexual appointee has outed themselves as straight, but them's the special rights, I mean rules to be applied ONLY to the gay folk!

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

if they're not out, they're not gay. you think richardson would be latino (politically) if he pretended otherwise?

quark · 10 months ago

Oh. Ok - so since none of the straight appointees have publicly declared they are straight then we can't assume that 100% of the cabinet is NOT gay?

Obviously the straights need to begin protesting lack of representation!

timncguy · 10 months ago

what do you mean the straights aren't OUT? Do they wear wedding rings? Have their "spouses" been vetted? Are you claiming that they are in sham marriages unless they state in public that they are straight?

It is well established that straight people don't have to "declare" their heterosexuality directly. They declare it by living their lives in the open. They don't HIDE their relationships, their spouses, their children. They have family pictures on their desks at work without fear of retribution etc, etc, etc

quark · 10 months ago

That obvious tongue in cheek response is simply meant to emphasize the utter ridiculousness of the prior statement "if they're not out, they're not gay."

Just because some anonymous blog poster declares the millions of non outed gays "not gay" clearly does not make it so. Folks wanting to advance in public office often keep sexual orientation to themselves even when is it generally understood.

Folks under consideration for cabinet level appointments usually have very high level experience. It is normal that gays who qualify at this level may not be out, and they are NOT any less gay because of that! It is insulting and arrogant to judge and make such sweeping declarations about them!

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

politically, they are NOT gay. read what i said please. if you have a latino or jewish grandma and nobody knows it, you are politically not latino or jewish.

unclaimed · 10 months ago

No, there was a woman being considered for Labor Sec'y who is an out lesbian. Her name was totally new to me; I don't remember ,sorry.

But thanks!

renegademom · 10 months ago

Her name is Mary Beth Maxwell, and here is her bio from the American Rights at Work website:

Executive Director
Mary Beth Maxwell is the founding Executive Director of American Rights at Work, a national advocacy organization launched in 2003 whose mission is to modernize and reform our nation’s labor laws to better meet the needs of 21st century employers and workers. Maxwell’s work has garnered national news coverage in the pages of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, among many other news outlets, dramatically altering the public debate about the need for employers and workers to have access to a fair collective bargaining process.

Maxwell is the author of the organization’s inaugural report, Some of Them Are Brave: The Unfulfilled Promise of American Labor Law. She is widely acknowledged as the leading voice for improving the effectiveness of the National Labor Relations Board and in finding common ground among diverse groups to solve problems in our nation’s antiquated labor-management public policies.

Maxwell brings more than 15 years of management experience, staff development, policy reform, and grassroots organizing skills to her current position. She previously served as National Field Director for Jobs with Justice. During her tenure, the organization quadrupled the number of local affiliates, with similar growth in its national staff. As a result, the organization engaged new allies, mobilized support, and built relationships with stakeholders to broaden and strengthen the causes of worker and economic justice.

Prior to Jobs with Justice, Maxwell was Deputy Field Director for NARAL, directing the pro-choice organization’s electoral, legislative, media, and fundraising training programs for local affiliates. She also served as Field Director for the United States Student Association where she designed field programs to organize students in targeted congressional districts to impact higher education policy, and managed a leadership development and grassroots action program, which mobilized thousands of students.

Throughout her professional career, Maxwell has developed a rare acumen for building broad, sustainable coalitions among diverse sectors in support of policy reforms by directly involving those most affected by the decisions. Her calling to social justice activism is rooted in her Catholic upbringing in Omaha, Neb., and her undergraduate years at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wis., where she became deeply involved in civil rights, anti-poverty and women’s rights issues. She graduated with honors, earning three degrees in English, Philosophy, and Political Science. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Partnership for Working Families and the Discount Foundation and is an active member of Sacred Heart Catholic Parish in Washington, DC, the Human Rights Campaign, the Family Equality Council, among many other groups. She and her 7-year-old son, Coleman Charles, reside in Washington, DC.

wearing out my F key · 10 months ago

equality doesn't mean you always get what you want.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

nomination for the most incisive comment.

wearing out my F key · 10 months ago

thank you.

timncguy · 10 months ago

But, does it have to mean you NEVER get what you want?

flex · 10 months ago

Obama should nominate a qualified person to fill Richardson spot regardless of their sexual orientation. Gay people should be given preferencial treatment over other groups.

TheNeedle · 10 months ago

Obama hates gays. He wants all gays to be second class citizens and not have the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. Rick Warren is the proof.

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

True dat!

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

I do not believe that for a second. This was either a poor decision that was not well thought out, or a political calculation that it would help the overall cause to throw the religious right a bone even if it pisses us off. The proof will be in the pudding on things like ENDA, DADT and repeal of DOMA.

TheNeedle · 10 months ago

Obama is a clearly a homophobe. His election was a huge setback for gay rights. I have no hope for any progress in the next four years.

scottinsf · 10 months ago

Now you're just sounding trollish. Obama's election was far from a huge setback for gay rights. I actually have more hope than ever for major progress in the next four years. Not necessarily because of Obama but in spite of him.

TheNeedle · 10 months ago

You're deluded. Rick Warren is proof positive that Obama sides with the enemies of HUMAN rights, not just gay rights. His support of Israeli terrorists is just more proof. We're all fucked.

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

Message to all the homophobic Dems. In 2012 you just might need gay dollars and votes as the shine and polish of Obama's charm is already wearing thin, not only to LGBT people, but to many progressives who are not LGBT. Keep pissing us off.

And Bush just signed a gay rights bill:
http://minnesotaindependent.com/21528/bush-sign...

Seems that even Bush is better for LGBT people than Obama!!!!

I hate the Repubs, but I don't care much for the homophobic Demthugs.

foxy · 10 months ago

Boy did you hit the nail on the proverbial head. ESPECIALLY all us gay baby boomers.

Boycottutah · 10 months ago

And the Gen Y LGBT up and coming voters don't for a moment think they deserve ANYTHING LESS THAN FULL EQUALITY.

The old school homophobic Dems telling LGBT people to STFU are about to learn a lesson. Full equality will happen, and those standing in its way (OBAMA) will forever be remembered as being on the wrong side of history.

Also in four years many of the antigay people will have died
as one out of three individuals over 65 will die. The social conservatives voting for anti-gay initiatives and politicians will be in the arms of sweet Baby Jesus in 2012.

TheNeedle · 10 months ago

I wish I'd voted for McCain now.

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

I hope you are being ironic. If you are serious, you are seriously deluded. Obama on his worst day will be better for us than McCain would have been.

TheNeedle · 10 months ago

There's no difference that I can see.

RainbowPhoenix · 10 months ago

McCain promised early in the general campaign to put more people like Scalia on the Supreme Court.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

It's not so much homophobia; more like 'in your face token quotaphobia!'

Marc · 10 months ago

I am a gay man, and I appalled at the Rick Warren matter, and think it should be protested the hell out of. I am still furious at Obama about it, and will forever wince at how he "blew it" there.

However, that said, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that Obama has to have any quota system whatsoever in his appointees. These are fantastically important jobs, and should go to the most qualified person, period.

This mentality gave us the gift that is Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas, a black person, replaced Thurgood Marshall, a black person. Coincidence? George H.W. Bush claimed Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person out there. And that was an utter, complete, and total lie, as deceitful as the "read my lips" business that helped him get elected in 1988. I would have respected Bush I more if he acknowledged that he diversity on the Supreme Court an important value.

Indeed, I'd be OK if we all agreed that the *definition* of "most qualified" includes "diverse." But I hope we can also be honest that "diverse" is not necessarily the same thing as most knowledgeable, most experienced, or most capable.

I tell you, I wouldn't want the pilot of my airplane to be pilot of my airplane to fulfill a diversity program (LGBT, racially diversity, gender diversity, whatever). The pilot of my airplane better know what the hell he or she is doing.

Steve_in_CNJ · 10 months ago

your example seems to assume there aren't any well-qualified gay pilots. why assume there are no gay (or black or latino) equals among the top candidates? the notion of affirmative action has been around for decades and yet many people still don't know what it means.
sadly, Clarence Thomas was nominated because he was black and arch-conservative, but nothing else. there was insufficient weight given to his qualifications.

RainbowPhoenix · 10 months ago

Who are these qualified gay people? We need actual names to support, or we just look like a bunch of whining kids screaming "ME TOO, ME TOO!!!"

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

I am quite certain that a bevy of well qualified gay names have been submitted to the administration for each and every cabinet post.

RainbowPhoenix · 10 months ago

But have WE seen them?

ChrisSF · 10 months ago

Amen. This whole "best qualified" trope is a joke. There are a thousand remarkable people in the country who are extraordinarily qualified for each of these jobs. I'll bet some of them are gay. If you think these people are picked based solely on some idea of "merit" (whatever that means at this high level), you are deluding yourself in the extreme. They are picked based on merit, leadership ability, balance (racial, gender, political), who their friends are, how much they did to help Obama get elected, how close they are to Obama and his people, and a thousand other things that have nothing to do with merit. Give us a break from this fantasy life where people are assigned to jobs based on their SAT scores.

questionauthority · 10 months ago

HEAR HEAR!!!

smallhandff · 10 months ago

Obama is considered "black" despite a white mom, Richardson is "hispanic" despite an anglo dad. Can we revisit the "octaroon" standard of racial identity? Would one jewish grandparent make one a quota-worthy Jew? How'bout people who have a gay/lesbian parent who came out late in life? Can the HRC submit a list of 'i'm -not -gay -but -my -dad -is" candidates? Perhaps Mary Cheney's kid has a Cabinet appointment locked in 30-odd years.

hauksdottir · 10 months ago

A quota system? :pah!:

Why don't we recommend Condasleaza Rice for the job? Given the way she shops, she knows as much about Commerce as Palin knows about Energy Policy. And, she is black, lesbian, female, and probably atheist... thus covering FOUR minority categories at once! :wide evil grin: Or perhaps Obama could reach across the aisle and pick Foley or Craig or Graham? Being Republican ought to be worth 2 points on the token checklist.

See how stupid a token system is? Do any of us want to see a self-absorbed fool in a position of importance just to "balance" a staff? Given the economic meltdown, I hope that Obama finds a competent person with solid grounding in labor and business and trade. If that person also happens to add to the diversity of his staff, so much the better.

devlzadvocate · 10 months ago

Could the statement from Solmonese get any WEAKER?! Did he make that call before he turned out the lights and went to sleep for the night? He didn't EVEN ASK for a GLBT person to be appointed. DUH!

That's not leadership. Lap dog.

That's from the same guy who gave money to the Log Cabin Republicans to fund McCain against Obama.

EdNSted · 10 months ago

When will Obama appoint someone who is openly non-religious? There are, after all, more than 1 billion of us on the planet.

timncguy · 10 months ago

But, look Obama appointed a gay man as head of the White House secretarial pool...

Brad Kiley has been named as the director of the Office of Management and Administration by President-elect Barack Obama. Kiley, who is openly gay, is currently the director of operations for the Obama-Biden Transition Project and was a former vice president at the Center for American Progress.

In this role he will oversee all aspects of administrative services to all entities of the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including direct support services to the President of the United States

Akaison · 10 months ago

true :)

devlzadvocate · 10 months ago

We are such good organizers. And there is a "pool". LOL!

Seriously, it's a good thing and it appears a mild response to the fracas.

scottinsf · 10 months ago

That's great to hear.

Joel · 10 months ago

Our office has one of those, we call him Gofer.

Chit · 10 months ago

I vote he select the most QUALIFIED person for the job. Dumbass.

Elmo Buzz · 10 months ago

I wish the Human Rights Campaign all the luck and success in the world in getting Obama to appoint an openly gay person to his cabinet, in place of Bill Richardson.

I must say however, I think the chances of my mother seeing me on t.v. at half time during the super bowl, screaming, "Hey Mom!! Guess what? I'm Gay!!!", while getting a blow job from my freind Daniel are much greater than the chance of Obama making such a bold, in the face of the reich-wingers, statement in support of gay equality by appointing an openly gay person to his cabinet as Richardson's replacement.

I hope I'm wrong. (but not on both counts. daniel is hot)

Pyre · 10 months ago

At least the Armed Forces may start looking like America:
Obama era expected to end taboo on gays in US military

Would that balance out letting Rick Warren give a blessing?