Blue Blog
Opinions
Hillary and the Gays
Categories: election 2008, Politics

This “Message to LGBT Americans” has been floating around for a few days.

I think this document is great for reassuring Clinton’s constituents that they are voting for the right candidate, but it does nothing to change my loyalties, which admittedly can (and have) change(d) with the wind.

Do you see the word ‘marriage’ anywhere in this document? Does Hillary Clinton support gay marriage? No. Let’s see Hillary make a statement like this and I’ll proudly change my mind. Of course it doesn’t matter anyway. I’ve already voted.

Furthermore, how exactly does Hillary’s statement explain away the following quote she spoke in 2006 to SFgate?

“Children are better off if they have a mother and a father,” Clinton said in the San Francisco interview with the then-Hearst-owned San Francisco Examiner. “My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriage … and that people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another.”

(source)

Has Obama explicitly endorsed gay marriage? No, but he has come a lot closer and has displayed strong character in doing so. He defended gay rights and abortion rights to a CBN anchor in 2006. Hillary waited until the day before Super Tuesday to make her smoke-and-mirrors statement.

I don’t buy it. Bill Clinton charmed out they gay vote in 1992 using the same word games that Hillary is using now. Pick your cliché.

Most importantly, if you disagree with someone else’s poltical choices, you have more luck in persuasion, IMHO, making a logical argument instead of insulting the people who vote for another candidate. Especially when both candidates are so similar ideologically.

UPDATE: And, My Goddess! She voted pro-war. I mean i’m glad she wants to repeal her husband’s don’t ask don’t tell but I’d rather she’d also prevent these soldiers from getting killed in oil wars.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn

8 Comments to “Hillary and the Gays”

  1. ranslow (from Twitter) says:

    Richard,

    Though not gay, I agree with your assessment of Hilary and Barack. My take on Hilary is that she really can’t be trusted. She more than any other candidate in the election has told the public what she thinks they want to hear at any given time. She will do whatever it takes to win votes. She does a disservice to women and the American people as a whole.

    I consider myself a moderate, but I feel strongly that sexual orientation, and religious beliefs need to stay out of politics and we to bring back our civil liberties.

    Anyway…keep on kicking ass.

    Roberta

  2. JustinFeed says:

    I don’t have a lot of time this morning to provide a compelling argument, so here is the short and sweet of it:

    – The SFGate article you link to was written in 2006, but is actually quoting an interview with her in 1996, 12 years ago. A lot has changed in 12 years, and I would love to see what Obama’s quotes on GLBT issues were 12 years ago.

    – Neither candidate supports gay marriage. Period. They are even in this regard. If Obama came out for full marriage equality, I would have to support him, but he has not.

    – Even with all the disappointments of the Bill Clinton Administration, GLBT citizens came out of his presidency better than when they started. I am as disappointed as you in how little progress was actually made, but there was progress. 8 years have passed and the country is and has been changing. I think Hillary can further drive that change.

    – Excluding the Iran vote, Obama wasn’t in the Senate when Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution. We don’t know how he would have actually voted. In addition, he has voted with Hillary in continuing to fund the War.

    – My main issue with Obama is his pandering and embrace of a virulent Ex-Gay to get votes. If Hillary had done this, I would not be supporting her. You don’t see her embracing Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps, which is basically what Obama did in including Donnie McClurkin in his campaign.

    – As I said in Twitter, my statement wasn’t mean as an insult to Obama voters, but a statement of my belief of the issue at hand. What is insulting is Obama’s inclusion of Ex-Gay ministries in his campaign, and that is why I cannot support him.

  3. Adam says:

    I said this to MikeyPod last night on twitter and I’ll say it again. The reality is that the gay vote would never hand Clinton a sure success in any election, primary or general. So, she DIDN’T have to make the statement, but she did anyway.

    I agree with Justin on McClurkin. Also, the conflation of Bill Clinton administration and Hillary Clinton Administration has got to stop in the media and in the minds of people. It’s insulting to the candidate and, IMO, it’s misogynistic to suggest that Hillary Clinton couldn’t possibly have her OWN ideas and her OWN administration.

    I’ll reiterate what Justin said. Obama wasn’t in the Senate when the vote was called, he has been in lockstep with Hillary on war votes since he got into the Senate so if I am to back extrapolate how he would have voted on the war based on his Senate voting record, it looks like he WOULD have voted for the war. His absence from the Senate is a convenient accident for his campaign, IMO, not necessarily the mark of an anti-war activist.

    Furthermore if you look at the demographic that Clinton is appealing to it’s clear that she’s speaking issues that affect people. She is appealing to working class people, people who need a person who can deliver real change. Obama appeals to wealthier people who have time, and more importantly, money on their hands so they can afford to wait for his pie-in-the-sky change. Unfortunately, people without healthcare in this country cannot settle for a ham-handed quasi universal healthcare plan that doesn’t share the responsibility among all citizens. Grandiloquent speech after grandiloquent speech offering nothing more than vain compendiums of how Obama has beaten the odds up to this point do not speak the the people in this country who are in need of real change.
    of how Obama h

  4. Jack McMillin says:

    Also, Hillary supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I’m sure she wants to repeal that now too.

  5. Bryan says:

    The Iran vote is a BIG deal, as far as Hillary Clinton is going. She claims that she has the experience, and yet how has she used that experience? The Iran vote was a similar tactic to the Iraq resolution. Hillary voted for both. But, of course, after the fact, she uses excuses as to why she voted for the Iraq resolution, but never admits that it was wrong. Instead of using real leadership, taking a position, taking responsibility for that position, and engaging in debate, Hillary was trying NOT to appear soft on National defense. And, this position was used against her.

    At the time of the Iraq vote, Obama explicit spoke out against the vote, against the war and has continued that position.

    As for gay issues, both candidates are essentially the same. If somebody is choosing based on gay issues, then it is a toss-up, if that is the only reason for choosing a position.

    Obama includes Ex-Gay ministries in his campaign. And Hillary and Bill signed DOMA, enacted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and went back on serious promises made to court gay votes. Both Candidates do some positioning for politically viability.

    I think the biggest issue here is Hillary’s claim of experience and how she has used it. The Iraq war, FISA re-authorization, the Patriot Act. Serious issues, and she comes up with a bill to ban flag burning. Both candidates have pandered, let’s talk about their policy positions.

  6. @adam You write, “the gay vote would never hand Clinton a sure success in any election, primary or general. So, she DIDN’T have to make the statement, but she did anyway.”

    That doesn’t strike me as a compelling argument. First of all, if the election were about ‘sure successes’ being handed to people my various minorities than I think the election would have ended long ago. It’s a moot point. There are no sure successes in elections unless the election is rigged.

    Secondly, why do you think she waited until the day before Super Tuesday to make her statement if it wasn’t a calculated attempt to increase her gay vote? Do you think she suddenly found the need to express the love in her heart the night before this über primary?

    Also- The misogny card is being overplayed here. The quotes from the SFGate article I link to above are from Hillary, not her husband. If you are calling my statement in the above post containing ‘her husband’s don’t ask don’t tell’, that is a expression of irony, not misogyny.

    Lastly- As I discussed with B-Mark in YR753 today, there is a big difference between actually voting to give a retarded president the authority to wage war and having someone reverse-extropolate, as you put it, that they would have voted the same. One is reality the other is an abstraction.

  7. Brian says:

    Everyone of us is feeling anxious on this one. May I share a few thoughts from a social psychology perspective that has helped me deal with a lot of it? Also, I don’t want Justin to feel alone in responding with an essay. (With Richard’s permission…. here goes)

    We easily attribute motive in the actions of others when their behavior is at odds with our expectations. It’s normal to do so. It is also easy to discount people whose situations we do not experience ourselves. We miss opportunities and generally pay a price when we do this. Nonetheless we repeatedly blame needles in haystacks for being lost. In other words we (humans) are almost blind to other people’s situations. Interestingly, we see our own vividly and can become offended when others can’t see what we do.

    I do not claim to know either candidate’s motive. We all do the best we can to figure out with whom we choose to risk our hope. In the process taking a wider view might help us avoid some distortion.

    One way to look at it might be what is our ultimate objective? What are the barriers? Which candidate might be more suited to navigating those barriers? I happen to be supporting Obama. In my view major social policy change will require selling it to a lot of people blind to our situation. Fair or not, I think his skill set brings more people to the table even though Hillary’s skill set might be more technically suited.

    While I discourage reading too much into incidents like these, the following article attempts some balance on the details if you are so inclined. Good luck to us all. I think we’re going to need it, right?

    http://www.southernvoice.com/2008/2-1/view/editorial/8073.cfm

  8. Brian says:

    Wow, Justin’s reply was the only one listed when I wrote my response. I need to read what I missed now.

Leave a Reply