NYT-Clinton Ducks Answer on Whether Homosexualty is ‘Immoral’

[silvermachine]

This is disgusting. Just incredible...she is utterly calculating and phony. I'd like to hear some of her more ardent supporters defend this one.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-ducks-answer-on-whether-homosexualty-is-immoral/

"Asked on ABC News today if she agreed with General Pace’s view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said: “Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude."

Un-fucking-real.

[truthisfreedom]

1. What would you have liked her to say?

[donco6]

3. How about . . . "no?"

That would have been good for a start.

[silvermachine]

5. How she feels...

...you know. Honesty. Real feelings or opinions. Not another dodge until the pollsters, handlers and advisors tell her what to say/not say out of every corner of her mouth.

[Zhade]

8. Liked? That it's obviously not immoral.

An answer at all would be nice.

[nosmokes]

12. I'm w/ donco. No Would Have Worked. Simple. Direct. To the Point.And it

beats the hell of equivocations on a very simple subject.

[donco6]

2. To see such defenses, just look at the other posts here.

Thanks for the support, Hil. :sarcasm:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. To me it sounds like she didn't feel like getting BAITED.

She's always been pretty supportive of gay rights.

She's more progressive than Obama. I have no clue why he's some sort of lefty "Golden Child."

[silvermachine]

6. Nothing "baited" about it...

...just a simple question. Look, I'd still vote for her over any GOP candidate, I don't want the Dems to lose, but this is still nauseating.

[DemKR]

7. At least she was able to say she supports ending DADT, hello Obama???

But Obama is immune from criticism, apparently.

[donco6]

9. Her husband supported gays in the military - for a while.

Or has everyone forgotten that? I haven't.

[ryanmuegge]

10. It is a subjective issue. It's nothing that should be posed to a presidential candidate.

[GodlessBiker]

13. Every opinion is subjective. Is she going to refuse to tell us any of her opinions?

[ryanmuegge]

15. Of course, but it's an issue that's completely based on personal morality.

You can't factually support it. It's a 90s tabloid social issue more than anything. The question was posed as a trap (so the corporate elite and the religious front groups - christian coalition, etc. - that they fund can run ad campaigns using the soundbite in 2008, because Clinton is only 99.9% pro-super-rich-at-the-expense-of-everyone-else; not quite enough for those greedy pigs), and she refused to fall into that trap.

Also, what about prioritizing issues? I'm sure that her opinion on homosexuality isn't quite as pressing as her opinion on global warming or energy conservation or globalization.

Nevertheless, Clinton will never take a stand on any issue. She IS the caricature that the Republicans made of John Kerry in 2004 (the calculating political windsurfer).

[Dhalgren]

22. No it isn't a "90's tabloid issue". The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

came out and publicly stated that he considered homosexuality immoral. That is a categorical statement by an extremely major public/government official, made in 2007 - not the 90s. This is a damned good question to ask anyone seeking elective office. And I want to know what someone who wants to be President of the WHOLE USA believes on this issue. Who is Clinton afraid of offending? The Christian Right? So she thinks she is going to get a lot of their votes? Then she is delusional. Or maybe she doesn't want to offend what is arguably a huge portion of any base she might develop - GLBTs. There is only one answer that might offend that group and those of us who support their struggle for equality. And if Clinton feels that homosexuality is immoral, then that is something that I really want to know right now.

[Captain Hilts]

11. If she said 'no', some would be saying she was giving her approval for something...

that wasn't her business, or whatever.

[Dhalgren]

14. My gods! It isn't "what would you like her to say?" And it isn't,"She should have said this

or she should have said that." She should have said what she believes. Every voter has the right to know how a candidate thinks and feels about this issue. It is simple, yet important. Do you believe that homosexuality is immoral? Yes or no. You either do or you don't. This isn't a trick question and it is not a question where there is any real middle-ground. If you cannot answer this question, you can't be President. You know that Clinton knows full-well what she believes on this subject, she just doesn't want to say. Why? There is only one convincing answer to that question, and we all know it.

[donco6]

17. That's what I'm left to believe.

I don't want to believe it, but I have no choice based on her non-answer.

[Dhalgren]

18. I know. It just goes against Clinton's whole image, in my mind.

But a non-answer is really an answer, isn't it?

[donco6]

19. Yes.

Yes, it is. Sad to say.

[Elidor]

16. I have very mixed feelings on this

My second thoughts tell me that it's unfair to saddle someone with a question which will guarantee that they make enemies no matter what answer they give.

But my first instinct is utter disbelief: a politician in her position (lightning-rod), can't back out of a question like this for two very important reasons; 1) the question, deflected, is a snowball which will get bigger and bigger until she answers it, and she's smart enough to know this; and, far more importantly, 2) if gay voters feel that she doesn't have their backs, she is going to take a beating. Deservedly so.

Despite the fact that I loathe Hillary Clinton, I do have some sympathy for what she's trying to accomplish, and I try to keep an open mind about her actions and words. But this is pretty lousy. And it shows very poor public relations skills. There are a hundred ways to answer that question without saying anything of much consequence, i.e. "we're all god's children", which is frankly what I expect from her, but this is the clumsy stuff of a sophomoric challenger, not a battle-tested Senator. What the hell is she thinking?

If she can't stand up and say plainly that gay people are as moral as straight people, this is going to be a short candidacy. It may be unfair to her, I don't know, but that's the reality that she has to deal with. This is the PROGRESSIVE party, not the Pontius Pilate party. We have to insist on equal rights for gay people NOW, not after some distant election in the future, after we've 'kept our powder dry' for years and years. Hillary is stumbling badly out of the gate. I genuinely hope she can do better than this, because like her or not, she may be the future. And that's what really scares me.

[donco6]

21. Hillary? Enemies?

Seriously - no vaguely RW Republican is EVER going to vote for Hillary. Never. Ever. So who is she thinking she's alienating by just flat out answering "no - homosexuality is not immoral." And frankly, I think her potential supporters would actually find it REFRESHING to hear her actually take a definite stand on something. So what if she has to defend it? What are they going to counter with? The Bible? The Bible also supports slavery! It supports killing your children if they backtalk you! It supports war in God's name! Yeah, let's just go down that road. I'd love to see how that turned out.

[Colobo]

20. Thread #2758 about the same crap

[Dhalgren]

23. Where are the other 2757 threads on Clinton's non-answer to a perfectly fair question?