Clinton Takes Swing At Obama's Gay Record

[sunoftheskye]

In an interview today with the Washington Blade, editor Kevin Naff asks Hillary Clinton about "critics who say Obama is more likely to address gay issues in front of a non-gay audience." (Obama specifically mentioned gays and lesbians most recently in his MLK Day speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, and in his speech following Ted Kennedy's endorsement)

Responds Clinton: "I find it ironic since Sen. Obama had his gospel tour with [Donnie] McClurkin that he and his supporters would take credit for that."

Clinton again defended her position on DOMA. She favors repealing the portion which prohibits the recognition of same-sex couples while Obama favors repealing the entire act.

Says Clinton: "I believe that my position reflects the experience I had fighting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. At the time, I was chair of the Democratic Steering & Outreach Committee and I worked hand-in-hand with [the Human Rights Campaign] and other members of the LGBT community to stop the amendment. We’d already seen the success the Republican majority had had in 2002, 2004 in using this as a wedge issue. I was able to explain to other senators that DOMA ensured marriage would be left to the states — that was critical in defeating the amendment. It gave us an argument with both Republicans and Democrats. We cannot count on the political atmosphere staying favorable. That’s something we’ve learned to our unfortunate detriment and I think we are in a much stronger position to bury forever the Federal Marriage Amendment and other mean-spirited, discriminatory legislation."

Clinton also speaks on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' ENDA, and her willingness to use forceful advocacy towards gay rights measures.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/02/clinton-referen.html

 

[PabloZed]

This shows why Clinton's ties to the past are troubling. She has to relate everything back to her husband and defend those decisions. Her husband signed DOMA so she has to defend it. Obama is free to simply say certain policies are wrong without having to make excuses about the past.

Similarly, although it does not come up on the trail Bill Clinton signed the law that allowed offenders caught with crack cocaine to receive stiffer sentences than those caught with powder cocaine. Clinton defends that decision whereas Obama has been arguing against such disparate treatment and he was vindicated when the SCOTUS decided that judges could give lighter sentences to crack offenders. It makes a difference to be unburdened by the past.

 

[thepro747]

I much more trust Hilary onGay Rights than Obama. I think he would do screw all so as not to annoy the more religious of his followers.

 

[sunoftheskye]

I much more trust Hilary onGay Rights than Obama. I think he would do screw all so as not to annoy the more religious of his followers.

Right, that's exactly why he's been speaking at black churches about homophobia since long before he was running for President.

 

[naked gent]

This shows why Clinton's ties to the past are troubling. She has to relate everything back to her husband and defend those decisions. Her husband signed DOMA so she has to defend it. Obama is free to simply say certain policies are wrong without having to make excuses about the past.

Similarly, although it does not come up on the trail Bill Clinton signed the law that allowed offenders caught with crack cocaine to receive stiffer sentences than those caught with powder cocaine. Clinton defends that decision whereas Obama has been arguing against such disparate treatment and he was vindicated when the SCOTUS decided that judges could give lighter sentences to crack offenders. It makes a difference to be unburdened by the past.

Nice post.....informative, analytical and civil.

 

[DMich]

I wonder if she had anything to say to Bill about DOMA or selling out the gay community (lying to get elected) and settling for Dont Ask Dont Tell?

 

[Jannus]

Mrs. Clinton has deep support within the gay community because she has helped obtain some aids funding, has marched in gay rights parades, and has stated support for same sex civil unions.

But her support has always struck me as superficial. She takes positions that allow her to appear all things to all people. She opposes gay marriage, so she can tell the conservatives she is one of them. Vote for Hillary - she'll prevent the queers from contaminating the sacred institution of marriage. And she wants the states to have the authority to deny queers civil unions at the state level, so voting for Hillary means we can stop the queers getting rights at the state level.

But she supports civil unions, so she can tell us she's on our side. Vote for Hillary - she'll get gays the same rights as heterosexuals. She'll get you civil unions, which are really the same thing. It doesn't matter that she opposes gay marriage, because a civil union is the same thing! Oh, and by the way, she does support civil unions, but it should be up to each state to decide whether civil unions are okay for that state. She supports civil unions, but only in those geographic regions where it is okay for gays to have rights. She is for us but she is against us. All things to all people.

Mrs. Clinton opposes gay marriage and yet she supports granting us the rights of marriage. But If gay marriage and civil unions are truly the "same thing," how is it possible to oppose the one but support the other?

It is like her position on the war in Iraq. She voted for it but now she opposes it. She wants to bring the troops home, but understands the need to maintain a force there for some time. She supports it but she opposes it. All things to all people.

Sorry to be the cynic. I understand that life is complicated, and that any real leader must make many compromises. Any real leader must work through complicated, difficult, and contradictory people and opinions. But I think Ms. Clinton's rainbow is for show. I don't think she gets it. I am certain a Pres. H. Clinton would not attack us as untouchables ripe for extermination, as did Pres. GW Bush. But I don't think she will help us, because I don't think she gets it.

It would be nice for once to have a leader who really understands us. And I do mean understands.

 

[sunoftheskye]

I dunno, I give the candidates a break on the whole marriage vs. civil unions issue because I understand they can't alien middle america.

 

[andysayshi]

I have no loyalty to either candidate (and I'm not from the US, so I won't be voting for either!) but this article demonstrates the value of experience to me. Clinton knows what works, and what is possible, amongst the dirty, partisan machine that is US politics. Any candidate, Obama inclued, can say what he WANTS to do all day long, but Clinton has been there, she has a realistic understanding of what can be achieved, and that compromises are sometimes necessary to progress in small steps.

 

[DMich]

Whatever happened to political courage? This issue is another example that shows that the US does not have a true liberal party.

 

[andysayshi]

I read it the opposite way. A more publicly subtle approach has more chance of progress than a heavy handed one. Obama's more public support may feel better, but surely talking about gay rights while standing in a church can only serve to frighten off the religious right, thus steering votes away from the Democrats.

 

[Nickboi_26]

This shows why Clinton's ties to the past are troubling. She has to relate everything back to her husband and defend those decisions. Her husband signed DOMA so she has to defend it. Obama is free to simply say certain policies are wrong without having to make excuses about the past.

Similarly, although it does not come up on the trail Bill Clinton signed the law that allowed offenders caught with crack cocaine to receive stiffer sentences than those caught with powder cocaine. Clinton defends that decision whereas Obama has been arguing against such disparate treatment and he was vindicated when the SCOTUS decided that judges could give lighter sentences to crack offenders. It makes a difference to be unburdened by the past.

I am still undecided between Hillary and Obama... but to your point, Hillary is saying stuff to explain stuff that she or her husband have said or done in the past, while Obama is still at the point where politicians are just claiming that they are the next best thing since sliced bread. Point is, how certain are we that Obama will deliver? There is an old saying that keeps coming to my mind "Known devil is better than an unknown one".

As much as I like what I hear from Obama, he is unknown just as Bush Jr was when he came to power (and before he ruined this country for the next few generations). With Hillary comes Bill, who may be a pussy hound but is know to be not as dumb or cocky as the current...

 

[Raincoat Massacre]

Save our enovironment first then lets worry about gay marriage.

 

[Raincoat Massacre]

I really haven't forgiven Obama for running around with that bigot minister friend of his.

 

[sunoftheskye]

Save our enovironment first then lets worry about gay marriage.

Why can't we worry about both at the same time?

 

[construct]

The difference between the two candidates on gay issues is slight to the point of vanishing. The only difference that I can find is on DOMA Section 2. Obama wants to repeal it, Clinton doesn't. That is the less significant of the two substantive sections of DOMA. Everything else is the same.

I honestly do not believe that that is enough difference to justify choosing one over the other. One is as likely as the other to scare conservatives on gay issues. Besides this is not 2004. There are not anti-gay initiatives on eighteen state ballots. One, maybe two states have anti-gay initiatives on the ballots. It's not going to be nearly as big an issue in 2008 as it was in 2004.

So we really need to look to other matters. I am pointing this out despite my belief that Sen. Obama is ever so slightly better on DOMA and despite the fact that I am supporting him. I am supporting him for other reasons.

 

[Raincoat Massacre]

Why can't we worry about both at the same time?

We tried that.

 

[sunoftheskye]

We tried that.

What?

 

[JackFTwist]

I really haven't forgiven Obama for running around with that bigot minister friend of his.

will you forgive Obama for being a member of the United Church of Christ, the only main line church body the demands full marriage equality - will you forgive Obama for being the keynote speaker at the UCC's General Synod last June, the same General Synod that would not even bring to the floor a resolution to repeal the demand for marriage equality because as one of the speakers said, what's the point, the same General Synod that let an entire conference (Puerto Rico) leave the UCC rather than change the marriage equality position so that the Puerto Rico Conference would stay in?

will you forgive Barack Obama for making a major point to keynote a General Synod of his Church that embraces full equality for gays and lesbians?

ucc.org

we meekly acquiesced when Bill Clinton backed down on his campaign promise to end discrimination in the military because he got got flack

we meekly acquiesced when Bill Clinton decided to play with with right wing and sign the Defense of Marriage Act so he would not be "pro gay" in the 1996 election

well fuck it

Barack Obama is for us

Clintons are not - they will sell us out for whatever they want when Obama stands with us when it can cost him

will you forgive Obama that?

 

[construct]

being a member of the United Church of Christ, the only main line church body the demands full marriage equality

we meekly acquiesced when Bill Clinton backed down on his campaign promise to end discrimination in the military because he got got flack

we meekly acquiesced when Bill Clinton decided to play with with right wing and sign the Defense of Marriage Act so he would not be "pro gay" in the 1996 election

Clintons will sell us out for whatever they want when Obama stands with us when it can cost him

Those are a few of the "other matters" to which I was referring.