The 2010 Issues: Global Warming

American environmental policy has come a long way since President Obama was inaugurated just over a year ago. Immediately following his move into the White House, the President instructed the Department of Transportation to increase national fuel economy standards from 27.5 mpg to 42 mpg for 2011 model year cars. This improvement preceded various other executive actions to address impending environmental concerns, namely global warming. On this front, the E.P.A. took a momentous step to recognize that greenhouse gases such as Carbon dioxide pose a threat to humans and the environment. This acknowledgment allowed the agency to strictly regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, factories, and other major emitters.

Yet the President and his E.P.A. Secretary Lisa Jackson both agree that greenhouse gases should be regulated by an act of Congress, not by executive decree. Thus, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed in late June by the House of Representatives, sheds better light on how Carbon dioxide emissions will be controlled by the federal government. The House Climate Bill would set a limit on how much Carbon dioxide the nation can emit each year, slowly reducing that amount each year until 2050. The country’s CO₂ emissions would be reduced by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% of 2005 levels by 2050. Utilities, manufacturers, and other groups would receive credits for permissible carbon emissions, and these groups would be allowed to sell unused credits, or buy more credits, depending upon their carbon needs.

President Obama’s first year in office saw some progressive environmental policy changes; however, many of the reforms that were initiated this past year depend upon further action in 2010.

While the House climate bill created a clear framework to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions, the Senate has just begun debating climate change legislation. Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” on September 30^th to Senator Boxer’s Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill highly mirrors the House legislation, with many of the same long-term reduction targets. However, since its introduction, the Kerry-Boxer bill has made little progress in committee, and is expected to face further hurdles in the Finance, Commerce, and Agriculture Committees. Moreover, the bill will likely not be debated on the Senate floor until healthcare is resolved, a jobs bill is passed, and financial regulatory measures are agreed upon. These obstacles have led some to predict that a climate bill may have to wait until 2011.

If Congress does not pass climate legislation in a timely manner, the E.P.A. may very well decide to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. E.P.A. reforms would undoubtedly reduce emissions, yet some fear unilateral executive action would not only cost President Obama political favor, but would also have a more damaging impact upon utility rates and manufacturing costs than would Congressional legislation with tax-credits, grants, and relief to the poor.

Election Watch 2010: Ohio Senate Race

Welcome to 2010: the Year of the Midterm Election. Anticipated as a great indicator of public opinion on the Obama presidency and the health care battle, we are looking at an interesting and intense fight for 2010. Perhaps one of the most intense races is in my home state – Ohio. After twelve years in the Senate, Senator George Voinovich (R) is retiring, leaving an open seat in the Buckeye State. In response, three candidates have declared their intent to run: Lee Fisher (D), Jennifer Brunner (D), and Rob Portman (R). Over the next few months, we’ll keep a close eye on the issues and candidates of this race. So, for now, let’s get to know these candidates better.

Republican Candidate: Rob Portman
Rob Portman, the only declared Republican candidate thus far, boasts and impressive history of public service. Native of Cincinnati, Ohio, Portman is a lawyer, small-business owner, and dedicated public servant. Portman served for twelve years as the Congressman from Ohio’s 2nd district. In Congress, Portman co-authored welfare reform and was a big advocate for a balanced-budget. Portman also served extensively in the first Bush Administration in a number of positions as White House Associate Counsel and later Director of Legislative Affairs. In the administrations of George W. Bush, Portman served as a U.S. Trade Representative and then Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Dick Cheney has called Portman part of the next generation of Republican leaders.

As is evident from his resume, Portman’s success may be dependent on public opinion of the Bush administration. A recent poll indicated that 44% of voters wished that Bush were still in office, perhaps a good sign for the Portman campaign. But, he’ll have to face one of two formidable opponents in either Lee Fisher or Jennifer Brunner.

Democratic Candidate: Jennifer Brunner
Jennifer Brunner began her career in the same office that she now holds: the Office of the Secretary of State. Upon graduating law school, Brunner worked for four years in the Office of the Secretary of State during Senator Sherrod Brown’s administration. She then left to establish her law firm before returning to public service as a Judge in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. In 2006, Brunner was elected Secretary of State. Her most famous accomplishment was her overhaul of the Ohio election system, a battle that took her all the way to both the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Courts. For her brave efforts, she received a Profile in Courage Award in 2008.

Brunner has emerged as the early underdog candidate in the Democratic Primary, although the election remains five months away. Much of the institutional support and major endorsements have gone to her opponent, Lee Fisher and she has reported low fundraising totals. She is planning to wage a full-forced grassroots campaign for the primary (care to join the Brunner Brigade?) and has stood up against the troop increase in Afghanistan, against the death penalty, for a progressive health care plan, and for marriage equality. She may be an underdog in this race, but she certainly has a lot of fight in her.

Democratic Candidate: Lee Fisher
Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher was born in Cleveland, Ohio going to public school in Shaker Heights where he now lives. Lee Fisher served for ten years in the State Legislature before running for Attorney General in 1990. As Attorney General, Fisher created Operation Crackdown, an award winning program to shut down drug houses in Ohio. After four years as Ohio’s AG, Fisher moved to the non-profit sector, starting the Center for Families and Children in Cleveland and later the Mental Health Advocacy Coalition. In 2006, Fisher joined Strickland as his Lieutenant Governor, and now serves as both Lieutenant Governor and the Director of the Ohio Department of Development.

Fisher has emerged as the early leader in the race for the democratic nomination. He has been endorsed by many Ohio politicians and by President Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. He has also demonstrated a stronger ability to fund raise so far in the race. Fisher has called for a public option in the health care plan, encouraging Senator Voinovich to break party lines and vote for the bill.

Whoever the democratic nominee will be, Portman will enter as a formidable opponent from the Republican party. Next week, we'll take a look at how the candidates stand on the current health care debate. But for now, this election is shaping up to be a battle between the large cities of Ohio, as Fisher hails from Cleveland, Brunner from Columbus, and Portman from Cincinnati.

The 2010 Issues: Education

Obama – unlike Bush who nicknamed himself the “education president” and made national education legislation one of his first legislative priorities – has not made education a huge part of his agenda in the first year of his presidency. The moves he did make in 2009 were well received: picking an education secretary respected by reformers and union leaders alike and using money from Congressional stimulus packages to spur state-based reform.

But, what will 2010 bring in the politics of education? Here are two topics sure to be on everyone’s minds.

Race to the Top Fund

As part of the stimulus money allocated for education, Obama designated $4.35 billion for a grant competition among states known as Race to the Top. In theory, the prospect of more money for education should provide states with the incentive to create more meaningful reforms. The two-phase competition, which ends in September 2010, is a big deal for states (and DC), which are scrambling to remove undesirable laws and to create new programs that have an impact in the four main areas scored: turning around failing schools, creating better standards and assessments, increasing the use of data, and improving teacher quality. As applications are reviewed and money rewarded, look for a bigger discussion of what kinds of innovation have and haven’t been working and some of the institutional barriers that exist for states and cities trying to revolutionize their schools.

Most people in education understood the rules of Race to the Top as an outline of the Obama agenda on education, and Obama and Secretary of Education Duncan’s statements on education, which focus on raising the bar on failing schools and on teacher quality (specifically the importance of linking the assessment of teachers to student achievement data), seem to corroborate this claim.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Reauthorization

A recent article in Education Week suggests that Race to the Top not only laid out Obama’s broad priorities in education but also his plans for changes in NCLB, which is set to be reauthorized soon, possibly in 2010. If the debate about NCLB does get underway in 2010, it will become a huge, nationwide discussion of the direction of the government’s education policy in the last decade. There has been controversy about so many elements of NCLB that there are just too many points to name, and there is general consensus that the law is broken and in need of a total revamping. Some major questions about the general approach taken under NCLB need to be answered, and maybe will be in 2010:

• Should the role of the federal government be smaller or larger? States have actually made less progress (as measured by a national assessment) since NCLB, when the federal government took on a larger role. Some will say, hand education back to the states. Others will say that the structure of NCLB encouraged states to lower standards on their own assessments in order to reach the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014, thus decreasing actual student learning.
• Is the sanction approach of NCLB the right way to do it? Under NCLB, schools that are failing are labeled that and face a variety of what we might call punishments, including forced restructuring and the possibility of losing many students and the money that comes with them. The approach that Obama has taken with Race to the Top is one of positive incentives, and maybe that, or something like it, can be translated into NCLB.

Also, if you’re interested in reading more about these issues a good basic resource is the Times Topics page on No Child Left Behind. There are also many articles on Race to the Top and other stimulus funds in Education Week’s “Schools and the Stimulus”

Maddy Joseph

Campaign Trip ’09: The College Dems Legend Reprised

Election Day 2009 is behind us and the CU Dems Campaign Trip just a memory--but a good one. Roving reporter Helen Kilian, BC'13, recaps the journey from Morningside to Manassas.

EPISODE 1: THE VOYAGE BEGINS

At 8:30 a.m. on Friday, October 30, 2009, the Dems Campaign Trip saga began. The ground littered with Oren's cups and copies of the New York Times, it was clearly an assembly of the liberal-minded that gathered on College Walk that morning to kick off a four day marathon of GOTV action. The excitement was palpable as we, the campaign-trippers, carbo-loaded for the long and strenuous van ride ahead, feasting on high-quality bagels and cream cheese stolen by necessity from Hewitt. Time stretched on as Prestige Vans proved to be not so prestigious in their ability to actually provide punctual transportation services.

However, at long last, vans 1, 2, and 3 arrived to the joy of their soon-to-be occupants. That joy, unfortunately, was short-lived for many, as the reality of a six-hour drive in a cramped fifteen-passenger van set in. Van 1 chose to rep the 80's to the chagrin of certain van members (Barry), but elation of others who choreographed and sang along to the sweet musical stylings of Cyndi Lauper and Bon Jovi.

At long last, after many hours of tree identification, nap attempts, and other failed efforts at passing the time, the Dems arrived triumphantly in Virginia, checking-in at the Quality Inn, where the desk attendants were very concerned at our teachers’ reactions if any boys and girls stayed in the same room. We, the corrupt youth of America, found this very amusing. Also amusing was Freshman Rep Michael R.’s discovery that we were not, in fact, staying at the Holiday Inn, where—in true College Democrat fashion—he had asked his mother to send him an absentee ballot. Luckily, repeated renditions of a certain song, and the realization that the Quality Inn provided both microwaves and refrigerators, seemed to suffice.

Though far from the city, somehow a taste of home was able to creep into the day one itinerary in the form of the not-quite-so one-and-only Chipotle. Several freshmen were exposed to the wonders of the Chipotle burrito (a veritable “brick of food,” described one campaign-tripper) for the first time, at what seasoned Chipotle diners repeatedly called out as, “crazy low prices.”

After this fine dining experience, and a slight delay of Van #2, which would prove to be portentous of this van's general pattern of behavior, the bonding began. In true Dems fashion, said bonding was facilitated via a circle of people saying their names and one interesting fact about themselves. Of note was the “fact” presented by one first-year that she was one of ten children. Evidently, it is nowhere to be found in the Dems Constitution that your “interesting fact” must actually be true… Several striking truths were, however, revealed, including gems such as, “I love to eat,” “I go to SEAS,” and Lead Activist Stephen's tried and true, “I'm a Gemini.” (Apparently the Constitution has no provision against recycled facts either...).

Night One dinner was a subject of much debate. One van headed off to experience some true NoVA nightlife: a carnival erected in the middle of a K-Mart parking lot. This taste of Virginia's undeniable classiness was chased with a showcase performance by an organizer at the Creigh Deeds campaign headquarters, located in the same plaza. This well-meaning woman dropped more f-bombs than anyone felt quite comfortable with, extolling the virtues of all surrounding restaurants with the qualifier, “FUCKING GREAT, MAN.” Needless to say, we all ate well that night.

EPISODE 2: THE ASSES LEARN TO CANVASS

The next morning marked day one of canvassing. Exhilarated with GOTV spirit, spurred on by a fantastic retrofitted rendition of “Light My Candle” by board members Avi E. and Sarah S., we, the eager campaigners, hit our turf running. The weather was less than hot, in both senses of that adjective, but we kept our spirits high, fueled by the first of many excellent PB&J bag lunches. Overall, extremes of success and failure were evident in all canvassers' results. At the last stop of the morning route, for instance, a 28 year old woman was convinced to go out and vote for Deeds after discovering that he is not only endorsed by Obama, but his opponent hates women and gays! This was promptly followed by a door slam in the face by an irate Republican.
Luckily, such campaigning woes were allayed by the prospect of that night's Halloween festivities, which were preceded by the greatly anticipated free food at Chipotle night. Inspired by their undying love of Chipotle, the Dems donned their best burrito costumes and flocked out for free—and by definition, significantly tastier—Chipotle burritos. Favorite costumes not crafted out of tin foil included “old news” (a dress crafted entirely out of old newspaper), Rosie the Riveter, Sarah Palin (complete with “Palin 4 Prez 2012” tramp stamp), and various Dems as Dems imitation costumes (the highest form of flattery).

Yet the saving grace of the Dems' late-night Halloween event was not the great costumes, but rather the wonderful phenomenon that is daylight savings time. After an extra hour of much needed sleep, the campaigners hit the trail once again. In the rain. A rousing motivational sermon from Jonathan B., coupled with some slightly higher quality bagels than those from the so-called Quality Inn made for a slightly less sucky morning, but all that this campaigner can say is that thank God it stopped raining. Our various encounters with felons and Jesus freaks would have been significantly less amusing were our ability to flee from them hindered by even more slippery leaves.

After “shot-gunning” late into the night, a canvassing method whose name happens to be quite a propos to the region given the preponderance of actual shotguns spotted hanging over mantles, several Dems decided to venture to our nation's capital under the fearless leadership of Dems prez Kate-O. Since we had not, of course, walked quite enough already during the day, we decided to take a lovely nighttime walking tour of D.C.'s monuments and memorials. This prompted utter exhaustion and subsequent like-a-rock sleep upon return at approximately 1 a.m.


EPISODE 3: LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT

Monday's morning routine was marked by even more physical activity—this time in the form of group aerobics via the Cupid Shuffle led from atop our fifteen passenger vans. Adrenaline pumping, the Dems headed off to headquarters to receive assignments from illustrious field organizer Keith. Canvassing and “lit-dropping” was the name of our game for this long workday. In fact, this process continued into dinnertime, when it became significantly awkward to be watched by suspicious Virginians whilst hanging Creigh Deeds propaganda from doors and running away. We later phone-banked their little hearts out until 7 p.m., when we were finally released for dinner.

Yet the sweet taste of freedom was brief, as we were summoned back for a pre-election day canvass “striking party.” To those unfamiliar with campaign work, said celebration may sound questionable, but this blogger can assure you that—for better or worse—a “striking party” involves neither hitting things nor partying. Crossing out bad addresses with a Sharpie…a rollicking party indeed. Luckily, most were able to get a quality night’s sleep back at the Quality Inn, which would prove to be much needed.

EPISODE 4: E-DAY DEFEAT

When I was a young kid, I would always wake up super early on Christmas day out of sheer excitement at the momentous occasion. 6, sometimes even 5 a.m. would see me running down the stairs with enthusiasm and joy.

Somehow, Election Day in Virginia did not elicit quite the same reaction. 6 a.m. came much too soon, and not even the awesome $1.35 Sunoco gas station coffee could rouse this blogger. A good luck bowl of Fruit Loops helped to slightly bolster the spirits, but unfortunately could not help Creigh Deed’s ever-plummeting poll numbers. In a last ditch effort to get out the vote, the Dems hit their turf with a vengeance (against Bob McDonnell, specifically) and knocked on hundreds of doors—most of which went unanswered due to the fact that it was Tuesday morning.

After a stroke of organizing genius, we were finally instructed to at least leave some fine Deeds literature at our stops, which at least provided some sense of purpose to the endeavor. It was approaching 4:00 when the last van assembled in the tiny campaign office for some inspirational parting words from Keith. Jonathan B. presented our dear leader with a mix CD of Dems favorites (see The Ballad of Mark Warner) in hopes of mitigating Keith’s…interesting…taste in music.

And so with little fanfare, the Dems headed back to NYC. But the Virginia lovin’ was not over yet, as we continued our efforts, phone-banking from the road for three more hours. Take it from me, Virginians just love having their dinner interrupted by campaign volunteers: “The polls are still open! Really, no, really! Go! Now! You still have fifteen minutes!” Luckily, with near full participation in our Jack Kerouac style phone-banking, the bitter rejection of being repeatedly hung-up on was quickly over, and the tired campaigners could bask in the pain of the reporting precinct stats (it’s a tough life advocating for democracy).

After tears, sweat, and blood shed, it was with great, great sadness that the Dems finally accepted our beloved candidate’s defeat. Better luck next time, Creigh…and good luck, Virginia. We hope you enjoyed our stay.



Photos courtesy of Kate O'Gorman

All Fired Up for Virginia 2009!

Hello and Happy Campaigning to all! I'm Abby Backer and I am a freshman at Barnard College. I have been hearing about these epic campaign trips for the past four years so I can’t even begin to express how excited I am to finally be participating in one! Columbia University’s fall break was designed specifically to encourage political activism and in the spirit of this tradition, the Dems plan to take full advantage of the long weekend by campaigning rigorously.

Last year, the Columbia University College Democrats traveled to Virginia where they vigorously canvassed, phone-banked, door-knocked and more to elect President Barack Obama. Once again, the Dems will be returning to Virginia dedicating our excitement and passion to elect Creigh Deeds as governor, Jody Wagner as Lieutenant Governor, and Steve Shannon as Attorney General.

We will be staying in Manassas, working long hours canvassing in various neighborhoods and doing everything we can to get out the vote! A few major highlights of the weekend should be a Halloween Hooplah cleverly themed ‘Capitol Hill Hotties,’ evening trips to Washington D.C., and frolicking around the great sights of Manassas. 40 of us are making the trip and we're all very excited for a fantastic weekend of hard work and fun!

Liveblogging the Capital Punishment Debate

9:00: It is morally wrong to kill, as Barry is pointing out.

8:58: The judicial system isn't perfect, Barry is remarking. Because of that, we should not be applying an irreversible punishment. Even Caitlin Halpern, the moderator is joining in the fun, pointing out to the Republicans just how deep the disparities of capital punishment are. African-Americans are 5x as likely to be executed as whites, even controlling for all other factors.

8:56: Great question from the audience to the Republicans--who determines who to die?

8:55: Barry: "All life is sacred. End of story."

8:52: There's no moral distinction between different types of killing, as Barry is explaining to Lauren Salz. If someone kills another person, it's just as bad if the person is part of a firing squad.

8:48: Our system of laws is based on the idea that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to kill 1 innocent man. That's why we have the Bill of Rights--it's meant to protect that 1 innocent person who gets wrongly sucked into the criminal justice system. The Nazi German system was based on the opposite, and they even used the reverse as a motto, that it is more important to get that 1 criminal, no matter what happens to innocent bystanders.

8:47: Will: "Statistics never prove anything." To Hell they don't. They might not prove causation, but they definitely show what's going on.

8:47: Barry and Usha are explaining why the death penalty isn't a deterrent--states with capital punishment don't have lower crime rates than states without capital punishment. In 1976, capital punishment was reinstituted, and states with the death penalty have had their crime rates increase more than states without capital punishment. As Barry noted, if it's a deterrent: "What's wrong with the South?"

8:40: Will: "Anyone have an idea what justice is?" Clearly, he doesn't.

8:38: Chuck is saying that the recidivism rate for victims of capital punishment is 0. No duh. Once someone is dead, they are dead. Someone who spends their life in jail also can't kill someone. Finally, Will is responding to the question of how the death penalty promotes justice: "I can't answer it."

8:35: Nick Shea is asking a very insightful question--what is justice that both sides claim to be upholding? Will doesn't know how to answer and he's showing it. He's tossing around Kant and philosophers, demonstrating that he has no clue how the death penalty upholds justice. Usha has a great answer that justice is about delivering the best outcome.

8:34: Chuck, the other Republican, is right, life is the highest value. And Barry and Usha are making the very accurate point that the death penalty defeats that very purpose. Will is just being stupid now, insisting that liberty cannot coexist with prisons. Of course people can have freedom while prisons exist for criminals.

8:30: Having debated against Will on multiple occasions, I'm noticing that he seems to have a consistent method of argument--seeming to not understand the complexity of arguments other than his own. I'll leave you to judge whether it's feigned or not. Capital punishment is far different than life in prison because once someone is dead, they are dead, even if they were innocent.

8:28: Will seems to simply not realize that there is a fundamental difference between the death penalty and other forms of punishment.

8:20:Usha just delivered a strong argument against the death penalty--government is meant to protect people and the death penalty does exactly that. Both sides are now arguing and Will (one of the Republicans) seems to not understand that the death penalty cannot be reversed while other types of punishment can always be addressed in some way or another if they are misapplied.

8:15: And we're off! The Republicans have the opening statement. And they're making an interesting, and morally reprehensible, case--that the death penalty should be used not because it protects us, but because some people deserve to die. It's a disturbing argument not just because it does not take into account the benefits or disadvantages to society, but because it plainly advocates killing for the sake of killing.

Liveblog: Capital Punishment

Today, we're having a debate on capital punishment between the Democrats and the Republicans, moderated by the CPU. Once again, I'll be liveblogging this. Usha Sahay and Barry Weinberg are arguing for the Democrats.

Liveblogging the Queer Issues Debate

Welcome! We're getting down to the student debate on Queer Issues between the College Democrats and the College Republicans.

We're represented by Brandon Storm and Barry Weinberg, both CC'12, who will be arguing Barack Obama and Joe Biden's positions. Learned Foote, CC'11, and Lauren Salz, BC'11, will be arguing the Republican side.

7:44: We're just getting down to business.

7:49: Brandon's giving a strong explanation of why Barack Obama is significantly better than John McCain on gay issues.

7:51: First question on gay marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act, a really horrible bill that prohibits gay marriage on the federal level. Barack Obama supports repealing the bill.

7:53: Republicans: "The Judicial Branch should not be involved in creating legislation." Sounds like what conservatives said about abortion and segregation. And in fact, Lauren Salz, for the Republicans, made the link to abortion for us.

Barry's giving a full-throated defense of the Supreme Court's work to protect equal rights. He's absolutely right.

7:56: Learned Foote, for the Republicans, is saying that there's no right to privacy, and so Lawrence v. Texas should not have been ruled as such. Lawrence v. Texas ruled states can't criminalize gay sex. Is that something he really wants to highlight? That John McCain thinks sodomy should be illegal?

Does Learned Foote think that's the right path?

8:00: Oooh, a question on sex ed for McCain. Sarah Palin doesn't believe in contraceptives. But Barack Obama does, and he's fought to support sex ed.

8:04: Learned Foote is again going back to the States' Rights argument. Does he really think that's such a winner? It didn't stop the last Civil Rights Movement in the '60s. Can't imagine it would be popular now.

8:07: So far it's a much quieter debate than the first debate. No one seems like they want to throw punches yet.

8:10: The Dems better go after this. Learned Foote just said that John McCain doesn't support discrimination. Then why does he oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? How can he say that when John McCain supports the horrifically discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy.

8:14: Audience participation. A member of the audience just challenged Barry on why Obama doesn't support gay marriage. She was cut off by the moderator after Barry explained that Obama doesn't have a problem with gay people getting married, but the government institution would be a civil union.

8:17: Barry's absolutely right. John McCain stood up against the religious right in 2000. Now, he's kissing up to them. Learned Foote said that John McCain supports gay adoption. That's absolutely, 100% not true. In a July interview, John McCain said that he was opposed to gay adoption because he was "for the values and principles that two parent families represent".

8:21: Finally! Barry's calling the Republicans on their opposition to the Estate Tax. John McCain might oppose the Estate Tax, but he supports a whole system of federal taxes that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

8:24: Learned Foote just lied. He said that John McCain is okay with ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's simply not true. John McCain is on the record as saying:

"The policy is working. And I am convinced that that's the way we can maintain this greatest military. Let's not tamper with them."

Learned Foote lied.

8:27: Barry, in the closing statement: John McCain does not support equal rights. Barack Obama does. John McCain's claim to support equal rights is "laughable".

That about sums it up. John McCain's claims are "laughable", because he says he's against discrimination and votes for discrimination. Barack Obama stands up for LGBT rights. John McCain doesn't. That's the difference in a nutshell.