Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage

[arcos]

Source: The Nation

After speaking at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 8, the former president was asked if he supported same-sex marriage. Clinton, in a departure from past statements, replied in the affirmative.

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage during his presidency, and in 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of marriage to one man and one woman. In May of this year, Clinton told a crowd at Toronto's Convention Centre that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving."

Apparently, Clinton's thinking has now further evolved. Asked if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage, Clinton responded, "I'm basically in support."

...

"Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality," said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey. "We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship."

Read more: http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=101828172967&h=67OOV&u=hOPD4&ref=nf

[rcrush]

1. Clinton all of a sudden supported a lot of things when he wasnt president anymore

[blm]

15. And when HRC had to run a PRIMARY, then he was against war after spending 2001-07 defending Bush

for his Iraq war decisions.

[pnwmom]

151. This isn't all of a sudden. Many people's ideas have evolved over that length

of time. And with every state that passes gay marriage, more minds are changed.

[derby378]

2. Too bad it couldn't have evolved during his term in office...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he sign DOMA into law?

[Autumn]

16. If I remember correctly the republicans pushed it

but I do wish he had came out and said it was wrong when he signed it.

[Ken Burch]

29. He said that when it was too late to matter.

It's worthless for a president to take a stand AFTER he leaves office.

[closeupready]

40. Except, let's be fair, he is still an influential public figure, and this will count for something.

So, as long as he's willing to move forward, let's all try and do the same, and try to forget about past skirmishes. I mean, that's my humble opinion.

[Autumn]

62. You make a very good point

people can and do change after time and he did have a lot going on.

[Ken Burch]

64. Lincoln had "a lot going on"

Somehow, he STILL found time to free the slaves.

[Autumn]

77. I was referring to the

investigations being pushed by the republicans.

[Ken Burch]

78. The Civil War wasn't as timeconsuming as Monicagate?

:wtf:

[Autumn]

87. Nothing to get stoked about, I remember Monica gate,

Whitewater and others taking up a lot his administration. I'm glad he has finally evolved enough to support it now, and he is still an influential person to a lot of people.

[Ken Burch]

91. Well, I hope it ends up actually helping, I guess.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

99. I'm not "stoked"

Just making a historical observation.

[pattmarty]

97. I can agree with you there. He was persecuted by the Republicans..........

.................but that was the extent of his presidency. Worst Dem president since???????????

[Ken Burch]

102. Clinton could have beaten the haters back if he'd STOOD UP TO THEM

But Clinton never did. On every issue, ever, every time the right roared, he caved.

The only thing he EVER fought for was NAFTA-and that was an anti-Democratic Party, anti-worker, antipoor treaty, which was overwhelmingly OPPOSED by the American people. No good came to anyone but the rich of Clinton fighting for NAFTA.

[kiva]

161. Exactly when do you think he freed the slaves?

And please don't say with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[MajorChode]

204. Thousands of slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation

Thousands of runaway slaves were being held in Union army camps and immediately when the executive order took effect they were set free. Also as Union forces captured new areas under Confederate control in areas included in the executive order, slaves were set free. So it's actually a myth that no slaves were set free by the Emancipation Proclamation.

However, it should also be said that Lincoln prevented the freedom of thousands of slaves by countermanding the emancipation orders by some Union generals. Also the Emancipation Proclamation was technically illegal because since slaves had been ruled property by the USSC in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Lincoln was effectively taking property away from people without due process in violation of the 5th amendment (even though slavery itself was a violation of the plain English reading of the 5th amendment).

[Bette Noir]

55. That's what a veto is for.

[Ken Burch]

58. That's the worse thing about El Perro Grande

He never vetoed any bad GOP bills, or at least none that affected the people that elected him.

Bill Clinton had nothing to lose by vetoing Glass-Steagall, or by letting NAFTA die, or by vetoing DOMA and making them pass it over his veto. Everyone who still wanted gays discriminated against AND wanted people on welfare punished simply for BEING on welfare in 1996 was right-wing on everything else.

[Autumn]

73. When Glass-Steagall was passed

the republicans had a veto proof majority. Same with DOMA ,the bill was passed by a veto-proof majority, even if he hadn't have signed the bill it would have become law, I think he must have agreed with it because he signed it .:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

75. Still, he should have made them pass it OVER his veto, like Truman did with Taft-Hartley

Bill Clinton gained nothing for his own popularity OR that of the party by betraying the powerless. There was no greater good that was saved through all that.

[PSzymeczek]

107. Glass-Steagall was passed in 1933

It was REPEALED under Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

113. That's what we were talking about...the REPEAL of Glass-Steagall

Which Bill Clinton not only signed, but actively supported, even though repealing it was always only going to be good for Republican big-money types. No ordinary folks gained from banking deregulation in the short-term, and September 15th, 2008 destroyed the case for Glass-Steagall repeal for all time.

[No Elephants]

209. the Republicans had 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senators when DOMA and repeal

of Glass Steagall passed? That would be 67 Senators. I don't think so.

The bill may have originally passed with a 2/3 majority, but that would have taken Democrats, not only Republicans. (He successfully vetoed bans on partial birth abortions twice.)

In any case, he should have vetoed both DOMA and repeal of Glass Steagall, no matter what, instead of giving them his Presidential imprimatur. And, he should have kept his campaign promise about gays in the military, instead of triangulating with Dick Morris.

[pattmarty]

101. Actually, I believe he wanted and lobbied for NAFTA.

[Ken Burch]

105. He did. That's what I've been saying

My point is, it's the only thing in the whole eight years that he DID fight for, and it was something only a Republican president should ever have fought for. NAFTA proved that globalization can't benefit the workers and the poor.

[Autumn]

84. Veto proof majority

it would have become law any way.

[Ken Burch]

93. If he'd made the GOP Congress pass those things OVER his veto

It would at least said the man was on OUR side. And it would have given people a reason to think that voting Democratic mattered, which nobody really had in 1996. It would have been like the swing back to Congressional Dems that Truman helped inspire by vetoing Taft-Hartley.

[No Elephants]

210. You don't know that. If Big Dog had vetoed and he and he had undertaken an

effort, you don't know that some of the Democrats who had originally gone with the Republicans would not have changed their votes.

[pnwmom]

152. The Republicans were pushing for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage

which would have been much harder to overturn one day. (Once an Amendment has been made, it is extremely difficult to get it out.)

The DOMA was supported by some Dems as a way to placate the Republicans with a bill that could be overturned by a simple majority vote as soon as there was enough support for gay marriage.

[No Elephants]

211. A Constitutional Amendment on gay marriage never would have gotten out of Congress, though. Not

without a lot of cooperation from Democrats. And probably not even then.

Constituional amendments for things like that just don't happen anymore.

[Windy]

166. Here come the Clinton Apologists!

:eyes: :popcorn:

[Autumn]

198. No Clinton Apoligists here , he did some stupid

things just to get along with the republicans or because he wrongly agreed with them. So has President Obama, but I am not going to trash the hell out of either one of them. Thats how politics work. Sometimes they piss you off, sometimes they throw you a bone. Nature of the game.:shrug:

[MajorChode]

208. Just why the hell should anyone have to apologise for Clinton?

Clinton never once promised same sex marriage to anyone. He was also saddled with a Republican majority for almost his entire term. So even if he had wanted to push for same sex marriage, it would have been quite impossible and politically disastrous for not only himself but the entire party. 1993 was not 2009.

As it was Clinton was able to get more of his agenda passed even with an opposition congressional majority than Bush43 managed with his own party in the driving seat of congress.

Apologize for Clinton? You've got to be shitting me. It's called politics, not everyone on the left getting everything they want all the time simply because the Democratic party is in control of one branch of government.

[No Elephants]

212. You are equating vetoing DOMA with pushing for gay marriage. The two are very different. And

there is no proof that vetoing DOMA would have been politically disastrous for the Party, especially if handled properly. One might have said the same about vetoing bans on partial birth abortions, yet Clinton did that at least twice.

Most people would say that someone who signed repeal of Glass Steagall could use apologists. Many would say the same about NAFTA.

As far as Bush getting less of his agenda passed when the Republicans controlled Congress than Clinton did with Democrats in control, I disagree. Bush and the Republican Congress, unfortunately, for us, cooperated very well. He vetoed nothing but stem cell research and they did his bidding as well.

Besides, as you know or should know, the poster was not claiming anyone had to apologize for Clinton himself or for the entire Clinton Presidency.

[MajorChode]

223. It was very clear what the poster was claiming.

And no I don't "know" or "should know" the claim was only about this issue. It was pretty clear to me that it wasn't. YMMV.

And just exactly how is one supposed to prove any ifs, could haves, or might have beens, would or would not have been disastrous for the party? In 1993, the vast majority of the US population was vehemently against gay marriage. Back in 1996, when Gallup first started asking the question, only 27% of Americans supported gay marriage. It's not like abortion that has been more or less evenly split for decades. And when Clinton vetoed partial birth abortions, he always used the lack of exceptions as his reasoning. So your comparison is really apples and oranges.

Bush got very little of his agenda passed. If you look at some of his biggest goals like SS reform, spending cuts, contracting out government, and education vouchers, he was a complete failure.

[No Elephants]

205. If you think it's wrong, you don't sign it at all. You veto or, worst case, pocket veto.

[No Elephants]

41. And had Powell draft DADT and run it down to Congress to enact.

[redqueen]

3. Too bad he didn't feel that way in the 90's. (nt)

[blue_onyx]

6. Too bad Obama (and Hillary) doesn't feel that way now

[redqueen]

8. The difference is they're still in office.

If Bill was serving in elected office, he wouldn't have come out and said this.

Sad but... that's politics for ya.

[No Elephants]

213. That is partially true, but not entirely true. Politicians have taken courageous

positions, jeopardizing their re-election, even their lives. Bill Clinton himself took a courageous position on partial birth abortion, vetoing a ban on two separate occasions. President Kennedy took a courageous stand on a number of issues, including racial integration, as did Harry Truman. Heaven knows, LBJ took courageious stands on both the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Act. (IMO his stand on Vietnam was wrong, but that is a different issue from whether he bucked the tide.) I am sure a historian could give hundreds of examples.

So, no, not every President puts his own political future or legacy first on every issue.

[SkyDaddy7]

21. I could be wrong...

I think Obama wants Healthcare and Energy reform passed and then see what happens in the 2010 mid terms...I think we will see a different Obama if all goes well. But that is simply my opinion.

[blue_onyx]

22. So gay people

should move to the back of the bus and wait their turn for equal rights?

[SkyDaddy7]

104. I never said that, did I?

I made it VERY CLEAR that I was simply stating what I think Obama is doing, nothing more. I respect and share everyone's views and emotions when it comes to the topic of equal rights for everyone but many here on DU allow their emotions to cause them to jump to conclusions...This is not helpful at all.

Now, you either think Obama is going to follow some type of time-line as I presented or you don't. Maybe Obama does not feel the same way we do? Maybe Obama does have a weakness called Christianity that clouds his judgment on this issue? Or maybe he is a very pragmatic politician who thinks he and he alone knows when to fight what battles? It has been almost 6 months so I doubt we can say anything at this point except he feels Health care and Energy reform are far more important to all Americans and that these reforms should be handled first...That does not mean we have to agree it just means this is what Obama appears to be doing.

Just in case you are like many others here on DU...Republicans do not hold a monopoly on bigoted views when it comes to equal rights for GLTB. I would have to think Obama has taken this FACT into consideration as to when, if at all, he decides to fight for GLTB equal rights. The House is one thing the Senate is whole different beast!

[MessiahRp]

74. So if we lose in the midterms, GLBT rights are going to be given up on entirely?

Because what you're saying is forget pushing any sort of progressive agenda items while we have massive majorities NOW since only corporate giveaway health care matters... and then in 2010 when Republicans win some seats back the smaller majorities will give us the excuse not to make any attempts for GLBT rights... Does that about sum it up?

Not going for it NOW on the topics Republicans will never support proves that Obama's Administration is either severely naive (have not ruled this out yet) or a bunch of closet Republicans in terms of a lot of issues (GLBT, Illegal Wiretapping, State Secrecy, Health Care - Yes a Public Option is still a loser compared to Single Payer)...

Rp

[SkyDaddy7]

88. You are jumping to conclusions...

What I said was simply my opinion on what I THINK Obama may or may not be doing...I never said I agree or disagree with his political strategy.

So, NO! That does not sum up anything but your own bias opinion of what you think I think, nothing more!

And by the way in case you have not been paying attention, by the wording of your comment it is clear you have not, Republicans are not the only ones who hold very bigoted views when it comes to equal rights for GLTB! So, lets keep it real!

If you knew me and who I was you would feel really stupid...Or maybe not, as it appears you think you know everything already.

I respect your and agree with much of what you said it is the tone and the "know it all" attitude that turns me off.

[MessiahRp]

165. Well it might redirect the angst but the outcome is the same...

Look even if I direct it towards Obama (whose view you were trying to speculate on originally), my post pretty much makes the same point regardless of the target. Read the edit in reply to what you wrote earlier.

"Because what Obama is doing then is to forget pushing any sort of progressive agenda items while we have massive majorities NOW since only corporate giveaway health care matters... and then in 2010 when Republicans win some seats back the smaller majorities will give us the excuse not to make any attempts for GLBT rights... Does that about sum it up?"

No matter what bigotry supposedly lie on the Democratic side of things, and I don't deny that is the case, there are enough non-bigoted Dems to get some legislation passed NOW instead of waiting until we inevitable lose some seats back to the GOP. And then the argument will change and once again the goalposts will shift. First it's Health Care is all that matters, then it will be "well we have smaller majorities now"... it will always be something.

Rp

[billyoc]

4. Lemme guess, he doesn't like NAFTA now either.

[Ken Burch]

31. And by 2025, he'll apologize for throwing the poor under the bus.

n/t.

[No Elephants]

214. Last I knew, he still defends repeal of Glass Steagall.

[ZombieHorde]

5. One down, many many more to go. nt

[zipplewrath]

7. George Wallace award

Clinton can now be awarded the George Wallace Memorial award for the biggest "too little, too late" change in position.

[VMI Dem]

9. Perhaps he can change the mind of President Obama.

This is one of the only problems I have with the current administration.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

148. That's so unfair. Bill Clinton left this message FOR Obama to clean up.

Had he stood his ground and not supported bigotted polices, people would not be blaming Obama instead of the one who created the mess: Bill Clinton!!!

[No Elephants]

217. No. Nothing Clinton did is unfair to Obama. What Clinton did or failed to do relfects on Clinton,

not Obama. Similarly, what Obama does or fails to do is not the fault of Clinton. You cannot blame Clinton that Obama ran on ending DADT, then claimed he was powerless to end it. You cannot blame Clinton that Obama has not used his power to suspend DADT discharges.

[Pirate Smile]

10. Good but frustrating because the main thing Obama needs to do is reverse a bunch of things Bill

signed into law. x( Easy to just say now, Bill, while Obama has to clean up the legal mess you helped make in DOMA and DADT.

[No Elephants]

218. Please see Reply 217.

[snooper2]

11. facebook is now a news source?

:rofl:

[redqueen]

23. The link is from Facebook, but it goes to The Nation.

It was obviously posted on someone's Facebook page, and copied from there.

Real head-scratcher, I know.

[Kajsa]

25. It sure was( and still is) regarding the protests in Iran.

http://www.facebook.com/mousavi?ref=mf

and his wife's page;

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Zahra-Rahnavard-/79757303129?ref=s

[arcos]

30. It is a link to The Nation...

Sorry, a friend posted it on Facebook. Funny, isn't it? :eyes:

[snooper2]

35. Well, I've never clicked on anything with facebook in the URL

And I didn't plan on making this the first time :)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

244. Just a friendly heads-up: Many link to The Nation via Twitter, too.

And post to DU.

[Unvanguard]

12. Yeah, only thirteen years too late. I'll never forgive him for DOMA. n/t

[polmaven]

65. You would have preferred

a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage altogether? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

81. They were never going to get thirty-eight legislatures to ratify that

Sacrificing LGBT people in the short-run didn't lead to them winning in the long run.

[polmaven]

117. in the early 1990s,

sure they would have. The country's feelings about this have evolved since then, and just look at how many states are STILL writing amendments to define marriage as "one man - one woman".

[Ken Burch]

119. We could have increased support for the party in the 1990's

by organizing in the states AGAINST a marriage ban. Mobilization builds progressive support. The problem in the 90's was that too many people accepted the Clinton insistence that progressives must NEVER mobilize, and should never pressure a Democratic president from the left. The result was, all the pressure came from the Right and you had the sickening spectacle, even in 1993 and 1994, of Democratic politicians accepting that their natural place in Washington was as junior partners in a center-right (or even center-right/far right)coalition government.

[No Elephants]

216. Nope. It has nothing to do with evolution, if indeed there has been one. It has to do

with the fact that controversial amendments to the Constitution simply do not get through Congress anymore. The country's just too partisan.

[closeupready]

111. There was the THIRD WAY! Unicorns and lollipops for all.

:eyes: Remember 'there is a third way', don't you? How well did THAT work out for us? :puke:

[Ken Burch]

115. It was "Unicorns, lollipops and MORE EXECUTIONS!"

Ah, the good ol' days of Strawberry Electricchaircake.

[No Elephants]

215. That was never a realistic possiblity. I don't think there has been a controversial amendment

passed since 1951.

[bluestateguy]

13. Clinton's actions as president put Obama in a bad position as president

DOMA and DADT. That was all done under Clinton. If Clinton had just left the military gay policy alone and done nothing, Obama could reverse it by executive order today.

Repealing DOMA will be a bitch.

[Beacool]

17. Yeah, because it's all about Obama............

:eyes:

[CakeGrrl]

51. Yes, it IS about Obama, because he's now taking the heat

because he's perceived by some as not moving fast enough in overturning the policies that were enacted on Clinton's watch.

So yes, it is now all about the sitting POTUS.

[Beacool]

136. Poor guy, my heart bleeds for him.

Please........

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

238. No, it's about equal right for all humans, not about Obama OR Clinton. But

both of them made campaign promises, then acted like jerks about them.

[Ken Burch]

56. It's about Obama's range of options

And the candidate YOU backed in the primaries would obviously be no better on LGBT issues. You couldn't be and be married to the person who signed DOMA.

[No Elephants]

45. Obama could suspend DADT discharges today, but pretends he can't.

[Ken Burch]

103. This is true.

HRC would've caved on DADT discharges too, though. What happened in the Nineties proved that.

[Beacool]

139. No, it doesn't!!!

The political and social climate in 2009 is not the same as in 1993. It's disingenuous to act as if it is.

[TokenQueer]

194. Agreed.

Bill Clinton was the first Presidential candidate to openly and actively seek dialogue (or even recognize the existence of) the GLBT community. Lifting the outright ban on GLBT service in the military was and issue he attacked head-on, immediately after taking office (per his campaign promise). DADT was a compromise when it became clear that lifting the ban in it's entirety was not going to happen. It was considered a "foot in the door".

Bill Clinton's support of the GLBT community (even in 1992) far outpaces anything we have seen from President Obama.

[blm]

201. That's untrue. He wanted to wait on it and BOB DOLE wanted to trip him up by starting a debate

about gays in the military.

Dole won.

Once the debate started, Bill was nowhere to be seen as he waited to see where the American people stood. He didn't put himself out at all.

Clinton wasn't committed to the gay community during this debate, and he wasn't skillful politically during the debate, either.

[No Elephants]

222. I don't know that all that many people have changed their minds about

gay marriage, except maybe in states that have had civil union or gay marriage for a while. People who opposed gay marriage in those states have calmed down now that they've had a chance to see nothing much changed. Heck, if gay marriage could go down in flames in California in 2008, I don't think things are all that different.

[No Elephants]

219. Please see Reply 217.

[JayMusgrove]

14. Bill (DOMA) Clinton.....earns an award as ...

hypocrite of the year!

[pattmarty]

18. I am as liberal as one can get, but I never was a fan of Bill Clinton..............

.............NAFTA, DOMA, repeal of bank protection act (can't remember the name of the "act"), welfare "reform". Clinton WAS a conservative president and I'll probably get shit for saying it. As far as domestic policy Eisenhower AND Nixon were more "liberal" than Clinton. I almost get as sick and tired of hearing people defending Clinton as a "great" Democratic president as I hear his detractors keep talking about the blow job.

[No Elephants]

47. Glass-Steagall

[Ken Burch]

53. That too, dammit. How could anyone still think Bill Clinton was a Dem after he got rid ot that

Banking deregulation was never going to be good for anyone who didn't vote straight-ticket GOP.

[pattmarty]

90. That's it. One huge cause of our current economic meltdown.

[No Elephants]

220. Yep, but one of at least a dozen causes, starting with Raygun.

[Ken Burch]

79. Bill Clinton was never a fan of the Democratic Party

Face it, folks, he was never ON the side of Rainbow America, Working America, LGBT America. All he cared about were the ceo's and the 'burbs. Aside from doing us the service of proving that globalization can's be be progressive, Bill Clinton was worthless to us. And, in the end, ANY Dem that challenged Bush The First on the issues could have beaten him. We never needed the Great Abandonment of the Nineties.

[Maccagirl]

182. Damn straight

Just like a ham sandwich can be indicted-a ham sandwich could have, and would have beaten Poppy in '92. If you've ever seen "The War Room" you will come away with the overwhelming feeling that "these people (on both sides) aren't nearly as clever as they think they are.". Both Clinton's were so convinced that they were taking the body blows from the RW fascists for the "rest of us". Bull! Please, just give my 10 minutes alone in an elevator with Bill Clinton-he'll get an earful of "truthiness" he's never heard from anyone.

[keepCAblue]

80. Michael Moore: "Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents we've ever had." n/t

[pattmarty]

95. I never heard that quote from Michael Moore, but it sums it up.

[keepCAblue]

156. It's a quote from Moore's book, "Stupid White Men" n/t

[No Elephants]

225. I would have thought Lincoln better, maybe Teddy Roosevelt, too, but whatever.

I don't want to quibble with Michael Moore. Besides, I get he was being rhetorical, not literal. (I've been watching Sotomayor try to explain her way out of her wise Latina remark.)

[BolivarianHero]

19. He's still a bigot...

With all those joint appearances and policy agreements, he's just so desperate to differentiate himself from Dumbo the Fundie that he had to say something. Until he categorically renounces fundamentalism and apologizes for not having stood more firmly against the bastards during his presidency, he will have no credibility.

[Ken Burch]

33. He's worse than a bigot, he's a coward

Bill Clinton was elected to STAND UP AND DEFEND the poor, workers, people of color, and people who wanted peace. He was NOT elected to say "Even though I'm a Democrat, I hate the same people Newt Gingrich hates." He was NOT elected to leave right-wing lies unchallenged.

Nothing in his administration could possibly justify the fact that he always abandoned the powerless.

[closeupready]

43. I can't say I disagree with ANY of what you have written here.

All I can argue is that, in the interests of advancing issues with strong allies and letting bygones be bygones, perhaps it's better to either applaud his new stance or, if that's impossible, just ignore it. Though if people want to continue to condemn DADT and DOMA and how he compromised the issues of traditional Democratic constituencies, I certainly can not blame them.

[Beacool]

42. Bill Clinton a bigot??????????

Now I've heard it all.........

:crazy:

[VMI Dem]

44. I'm curious to know what they think of the current President.

I believe he still opposes it.

[Beacool]

66. I guess that he's a bigot too.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

48. Not a bigot, a coward.

Doesn't it bother you that he never defended any groups in the Democratic Party and in the country that were the subject of vicious and unjust right-wing attacks? Doesn't it matter that he NEVER said "look, gay people are born gay. Deal with it", or "The poor want to work, they don't WANT welfare-stop lying about them".

The worst thing is, nothing he did actually increased the Democratic share of the vote. In first campaign, he received a lower vote share than Dukakis, and in his second pretty much just the same. The party gained NOTHING from triangulation.

[Beacool]

67. Well, there we disagree.

You are far left and I'm more center. I think that Hillary and Bill care deeply about people and have done so since their youth. Their idea of fun was spending their first summer together going to South Texas to register Hispanics in the poorest neighborhoods to vote. Not exactly the kind of summer activity enjoyed by most preppies of the era.

[Ken Burch]

76. They gave up those beliefs in the '92 campaign

The DLC was all about abandoning everyone who wasn't a homophobic uptight white conformist in the 'burbs. Why should only THOSE people(and the CEO's)have been entitled to the respect and support of the Clinton Administration.

It was never necessary to disdain all the people the GOP right disdained.

[No Elephants]

221. I never heard that about Hillary and Bill. If that happened, they seem to have lost something along

the line.

[Beacool]

20. Good for Bill!!!

As usual, historical perspective is completely lost in some of the responses. 1993 was NOT 2009.

x(

[Ken Burch]

28. We'd have done no worse in 1994 if Bill had DEFENDED the people who elected him

The truth is, we'd have done better, and he knows it.

No good ever came from triangulation.

This is what it would have been like if LBJ had waited until 1980(and yes, that WOULD have been seven years after his own death)to come out against segregation.

[Beacool]

32. He put himself on the line over gays in the military

and was pilloried by the Pentagon, the Repugs and even some conservative Dems.

:(

[Ken Burch]

37. He didn't put himself on the line at all on that.

Clinton let lifting the ban sort of hang out there as an idea. HE never passionately defended it. And he never encouraged progressives to build support from below. Worst of all, as on everything else, the Clinton White House told progressives and LGBT people to not put any pressure on him from the left, on this or on anything else.

The man lost on this because he didn't fight. If Bill Clinton had fought for healthcare and lifting the ban half as hard as he fought for the Republican, anti-labor NAFTA treaty, those things would have passed.

You can't seriously use this situation to justify the man's decision to cave on everything else for the whole eight years, and to refuse to ask the voters to return Democrats to control of Congress in 1996.

[blue_onyx]

46. "conservative Dems."

Most Democrats in the Senate supported DADT, including Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Feinstein, and Levin. The only Dems who voted no were: Boxer, Feingold, Wellstone. The rest of the Senators who voted no were Republicans, including McCain.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380#position

[Ken Burch]

49. You're talking about DOMA there, right?

Keeping the ban had the support of every DLC southerner, and especially that of Sam "Why Should Democrats Be Different Than Republicans?" Nunn. The hearings where lifting the ban was killed were in Nunn's hate-based committee.

[blue_onyx]

59. No, DADT

I had edited my message to add DADT for clarity...probably after you started to respond.

[Ken Burch]

120. Thanks for the further clarification.

n/t.

[No Elephants]

229. Two things. (1) Clinton could have lifted the ban on gays in the military with an

Executive Order, signed as soon as he was elected, much like Carter did with amnesty. He chose to send it to Congress because he wanted the political cover. (2) Democrats like Kennedy and Kerry would have voted for whatever a Democratic President sent them on the ban. What were they supposed to do, vote against it and not give gays in the military even the benefit of DADT, crappy as it is?

[YvonneCa]

92. EXACTLY. And they brought the issue up...timed...

...to hurt him politically and keep him from enacting his agenda as president. It's just like what they are doing to Obama.

I'm glad Clinton spoke up now...but I'd suspect he has held that position for years.

[Beacool]

124. I think so too.

Both Clintons have had gays in their respective staffs for decades and have quite a few gay friends too.

[shimmergal]

145. I suspect he has, too...

Bill Clinton has a good feel for the pulse of the country on social issues. It helped him to survive the impeachment, and he knows that "middle Americans" are changing rapidly to favor full rights for gays, and they're ready to hear it now.

Do I wish he'd done some things differently? Sure. But actually, nobody knew NAFTA would work out the way it did. It took Clinton and Gore some time and a wide-ranging debate after the 1992 election before they came out for it. The only high-profile person who was definitely against NAFTA at that time was Ross Perot. If you voted for Perot in 92 you're entitled to criticize Clinton's support of NAFTA; otherwise, well, Monday morning quarterbacking is a popular pastime.

Clinton got us the Family and Medical Leave Act, also tax (and other) benefits for adoption, both of which have helped my own family immensely. The latter Clinton administration is the ONLY time in my lifetime (and I'm a senior citizen) when the economy was so good that even "pick-up jobs" to tide you over were plentiful, and paid enough to live on. I don't see this recurring even today, and with such high unemployment rates we certainly need it.

[blm]

155. He did NOT. OTHERS advocated for gays to serve openly while Bill stayed quiet

to see how it would play out. There is nothing courageous about letting others take the heat while you wait to find a way out for yourself.

Your claim that he put himself on the line for this is ABSURD. He HAD a bully pulpit and wouldn't use it for this.

[YvonneCa]

162. blm, don't you think it would have been political...

...suicide for him to have done so in 1992? As a newly elected president, the issue of gays in the military was raised by Republicans as both a distraction and to hurt him and his agenda politically right out of the gate. I always suspected that he supported gay rights as a basic equality issue. JMHO. I saw DADT as a compromise that incrementally moved the issue in the right direction and (maybe cowardly or career-preservingly) kept his presidency viable. I agree, btw, he did not use the bully pulpit on this issue back then.

Thoughts??? :hi:

[blm]

173. No - he should have done what he SAID he'd do. Had he signed an executive order based on what was

right and CONSTITUTIONAL, he would have been able to move past it quickly and let the RW stew in their homophobic juices. The newsmedia was more fair then and had he been TRULY politically savvy, he'd have moved quickly on to welfare reform, as Gore told him to do IF he wanted to succeed at healthcare reform.

But Bill was only looking at compromises that would get him SHORT TERM benefits with the GOP that wouldn't last a week.

And, I no longer buy that he was swamped by the RW tide against him....he COULD have nipped it all in the bud by allowing BCCI report and all its outstanding matters to get a more complete airing. He proved he was never in the oval office for the right reasons when his book came out and there wasn't ONE WORD in the book about BCCI or any of its serious matters. The RW tide was good cover - the dog and pony shows that ensued covered up really serious matters throughout the 90s.

[TokenQueer]

195. Huh? Your post sums up the current administration so I am confused by your hatred of Clinton.

"He did NOT. OTHERS advocated for gays to serve openly while Bill stayed quiet to see how it would play out. There is nothing courageous about letting others take the heat while you wait to find a way out for yourself.

Your claim that he put himself on the line for this is ABSURD. He HAD a bully pulpit and wouldn't use it for this."

On edit:

Just sayin' :shrug:

[blm]

196. This thread was about CLINTON - if you really want to know why I don't trust Clinton

it certainly isn't just about this.

You think our nation benefited when Clinton sided with GHWBush on BCCI and protected secrecy and privilege instead of YOUR right to open and accountable government? You are welcome to explain HOW you believe closing the books on BCCI and all its outstanding matters throughout the 90s benefited this nation.

I am giving Obama far less of a chance to prove his commitment than I ever did Clinton. I waited till Clinton explained himself in his 2004 book.That book was an INSULT to any citizen who expected honest answers about the continuing effect of BCCI's outstanding matters on this nation and the world - ESPECIALLY after 9-11.

But, then, maybe you aren't even aware of those matters....if you were you wouldn't be asking why - it has nothing to do with HATE, and everything to do with understanding the depth of Clinton's complicity with the Bushes and their fascist elite cronies.

[TokenQueer]

199. Your snarky tone is unwarranted.

In the interest of productive dialogue I will agree that "hate" was a poor choice of words. Retracted. I will leave you with the last word regarding the the rest of your post since this is, indeed, a thread about Clinton and his "evolving" stance on GLBT issues.

I am simply stunned by all the revisionist history on this thread regarding Bill Clinton's support of the GLBT community and the implementation of DADT (see my response #196 up-thread).

[No Elephants]

224. Putting himself on the line would have been keeping his campaign promise, instead

of consulting Dick Morris. His campaign promise to was to end discharges simply for being gay. It was not DADT until Dick Morris got hold of it. And then, Clinton got Powell to write it up for Congress to pass, instead of signing an executive order. That was not putting himself on the line.

As far as getting pilloried, please, no drama. Politicians get criticized. That comes with the territory. "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" was a sound statement.

[onehandle]

70. DUers have short memories. Bill attempted bold social steps at the time. And it cost him Congress

The people were not ready in 1993. Now they are.

We will make great social strides in the next 7+ years.

The DUers who want instant change are welcome to move to Europe if they need it now.

[pattmarty]

108. What the fuck was that all about????

[pnwmom]

153. Most people here seem to have forgotten all about the Constitutional Amendment

that the Republicans were pushing that would have put a marriage ban into the Constitution. The process of overturning an Amendment is so difficult that we would have been stuck with that in the Constitution for decades, maybe forever -- based on overwhelming public opinion in the 1980's.

So some Dems, like Clinton, supported the DOMA as a way to head off those pushing for an Amendment -- since the DOMA bill could be overturned in the future by a simple majority vote. And that's what will happen.

[YvonneCa]

164. Thank you. I'm glad someone here remembers...

...the context and history in 1992-94 besides just me. :)

[Ken Burch]

118. I hope you're not arguing that people are ready now BECAUSE Clinton caved then

Judging by the 1968 election results, "The people were not ready" for the end of Jim Crow. Does that mean LBJ SHOULDN'T have pushed for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in 1964 and 1965?

[onehandle]

129. No I'm not. But there was Nothing like the civil rights movement for this issue in 1993.

Nothing of that scale.

It took time and will take more time.

I'm not crediting Clinton or "arguing for him."

[Ken Burch]

138. I'm glad to hear that, at least.

n/t.

[pnwmom]

175. Do you remember that Clinton was fighting a Constitutional Amendment at the

time?

Which could very well have been passed, given the strong public feeling against gay marriage in those days. And then we would have had an anti-gay marriage Amendment in the Constitution that would have required 3/4 of the states legislatures to overturn.

So instead, Clinton and some other Dems voted to help pass the DOMA, which can now be overturned by a simple majority vote.

[Ken Burch]

184. He didn't have to COLLUDE in the passage of DOMA to stop the amendment

It would have been enough for DOMA to be passed. Clinton's approval of it was not necessary to stop the amendment. And No same-sex marriage opponents thought to themselves after that "I can vote Democratic now that I know that they stopped the fa----s".

[YvonneCa]

163. I agree with you about Bill Clinton...n/t

[No Elephants]

226. LOL. Who on earth are you to tell anyone to leave the country, rather than post things at DU that

are not exactly to your liking?

LOL. Unreal.

[YvonneCa]

96. You are so right about...

...the historical perspective. Either some posters have forgotten the early years of the Clinton Administration...or they hadn't been born yet. :7

[No Elephants]

227. Or they simply don't agree.

[Siyahamba]

24. According to the article, he does not believe it's a "federal question"

So, we're still out of luck on the 1049 federal benefits of marriage.

[No Elephants]

228. Federal tax is definitely a federal question. But so is equal protection of the

laws. However, I don't trust the Roberts Court.

[Ken Burch]

26. The man takes a stand, now that it doesn't matter

Give the Big Dog a bone!

:sarcasm:

[Fearless]

27. I'd like to say better late than never... but I can't bring myself to.

[napoleon_in_rags]

34. Influential figure announces he's pro gay marriage, DUers bitch and whine about him. nt

[Ken Burch]

39. It's because it's not worth a former president saying it after he's LEFT office

It's useless that he's waited until it doesn't matter.

[napoleon_in_rags]

50. But it DOES matter.

For instance, if Obama supports gay marriage, he can talk about "the regrets of previous presidents" he would like avoid, etc. Clinton makes it so he's not alone. I for one appreciate Bill Clinton standing up and being counted as supportive of gay marriage.

[msanthrope]

57. Damn Jimmy Carter then--nothing he says/does is worth it!!!!

Oh, wait.

So Mr. Carter leaving the SBC because of their treatment of women isn't worth anything?

[Ken Burch]

63. It's worse in Clinton's case, because Carter hadn't made promises to women back in the day

that he then broke out of short-term expediency.

[msanthrope]

85. You are changing the subject because you lost your point.

But, which specific promise did Bill Clinton break to women?

[Ken Burch]

89. He didn't. I was talking about Carter and the SBC in that regard

My point stands: on EVERY occasion during his presidency when Bill Clinton should have felt obligated to defend an element of the Democratic coalition from right-wing attack, he failed or refused to do so. And there was NO greater good that was preserved by this strategy of always abandoning his supporters.

We never needed the votes of people who hated the Civil Rights movement, labor, lgbt's and the poor to win. The Nineties proved that "electing a Democratic president" is, by itself, not of any particular value, especially if it means having that Democratic president never take the side of those who actually elected.

No Clinton voters benefited from NAFTA, or the signing of Glass-Steagall, or the betrayal of LGBT's, or the punishment of "welfare mothers". If a person actually WANTED all of those things to happen, there wasn't anything left after that where that person could still be distinguishable from a Republican.

No Democratic president should EVER again treat Democratic voters like Bill Clinton treated them. If we're on a Democratic president's side, that Democratic president is OBLIGATED to be on our side. This isn't too much to ask.

None of the big donations he got from ceo's ended up doing the party any good anyway.

[msanthrope]

106. Right, so Bill Clinton didn't lie to you. I'm glad we agree. n/t

[Ken Burch]

112. That's a twist of my argument. I wasn't calling Bill Clinton a liar.

I was calling him a coward. There IS a difference.

[No Elephants]

230. He lied about gays in the military. When he campaigned, he said that

he would end discharges for being gay. Instead, he and Morris came up with a ridiculous, dishonest policy that also requires gays to be dishonest, if they want to be in the military.

[Ken Burch]

240. And, worse than that, totally caved to the right by including the poisonous phrase

"incompatible with the military".

[YvonneCa]

94. It DOES matter. n/t

[msanthrope]

54. Of course. When you lack historical perspective, or a long view,

or the ability to recognize that not everyone who doesn't think like you is 'unenlightened', then you whine and bitch.

Because, you know, instead of using this as an example of how a person can evolve in their thinking, instead of realizing that BC is a useful political ally, it's far better to castigate BC for DADT. Which was a step forward. A slow one, but change never comes overnight.

[napoleon_in_rags]

61. IT comes across as punishing him for making the pro gay marriage statement.

Because these negative comments wouldn't be here if he had said nothing. It reminds me of another thread I saw, where Prince Charles made dire statements about the threat of global warming, and everybody attacked him. It seems like we should be in the habit of supporting people when they make progressive statements, instead of acting like people can never change.

[msanthrope]

86. No, we should do a circular firing squad....not stick together.

Because we all know that we will win the cultural wars that way.

Unite, not fight.

[pattmarty]

110. Maybe influential, but where? In boardrooms? C'mon......

[napoleon_in_rags]

174. Oh, my mistake. He must be one of those "non-influential" ex-presidents. C'mon... nt

[closeupready]

36. I won't post my first gut-level reaction. Instead, I'll just say, this is nice. Thanks, Bill.

:hi: :)

[lies and propaganda]

38. IRONY

it really doesnt matter that you back now Mr DADT and DOMA

[Bette Noir]

52. While I applaud the sentiment, I don't think Clinton is the one we should look to for

support for marriage.

[No Elephants]

60. Could be worse: He could have said no, I don't support it. And SOMEbody of that stature

needed to say it.

[varelse]

68. As we all should!

Good for Bill Clinton.

[FLAprogressive]

69. kind of a day late and a dollar short

[onehandle]

71. Good. nt

[Bragi]

72. He went dead to me when he appeared in Toronto with * for $ /nt

[ccharles000]

82. lovely

[kdpeters]

83. How courageous of him.

:sarcasm:

[YvonneCa]

98. Thank you, Mr. President. I DO remember history...

...and your courage with changing policy in 1992. I guess some here are too young to remember... :patriot:

[Vidar]

100. Bill, even more than Obama, says what people want to here.

[defendandprotect]

109. Thanks to the wisdom of the GL community and their campaigns . . .

happily I think it is more and more difficult for anyone to back homophobic thinking

or spew homophobic themes.

Let's hope that continues --

And let's hope we can make permanent and lasting changes in the organizations where

the homophobia begins -- patriarchal religion.


Clinton is too late and played the game too long --
and is he stressing an overturning of "don't ask, don't tell" --
Bush had nothing but the ability to push crimes like a criminal --
Clinton backed off on important things we'll never recover from.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SeeHopeWin]

116. Cool...I do too!

[Deep13]

121. FYI, DOMA was passed and signed to deflate a national version of Prop. 8.

So I can't blame him for that. The Rs who had a majority in both houses wanted a national Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage forever. DOMA derailed that effort. Likewise, DADT was an improvement over the previous law which was you're-fired-if-we-find-out-even-if-you're-in-the-closet.

[Beacool]

122. They like to forget that around here.

Observe what a very polite poster called Bill: a Southern piece of ****. Well, that Southern piece of ..... has done more in his life to help others than most of us on this board put together.

Hateful, spiteful people!!!

x(

[closeupready]

125. No, rather, that is a FICTIONAL VERSION OF EVENTS cooked up by Clintonistas,

and I don't blame them, because there was NO EXCUSE for signing DOMA. He could have done NOTHING and it still would have become law.

[Beacool]

126. No, it isn't.

Check just how many in Congress voted for it, and from both parties. He couldn't have vetoed it.

[closeupready]

127. He has basically three options: 1) He can veto. 2) He can sign. 3) He can ignore it. #2 was his

chosen path. That is a fact.

[Ken Burch]

132. Yes he could have. And making the GOP OVERRIDE the veto

Would have increased Democratic support, as Truman increased Democratic support(and saved himself from what otherwise would've been certain defeat in 1948)by vetoing Taft-Hartley.

Taking the stand would have made a difference in the political dynamic.

[No Elephants]

233. Of course he could have vetoed it. Maybe his veto would have been overriden (or maybe not), but

approving it was not his only option.

[Deep13]

130. No, I remember it pretty clearly.

The R.s were trying to derail his whole presidency by shifting focus onto unpopular social issues--and they succeeded.

[closeupready]

133. THAT part is true. YES. They did do that. Yes. The part that is UNTRUE

is that he had no choice, that he had to sign DOMA, that if he hadn't done that, a national prop. 8 would have been triggered, passed.

[Deep13]

140. Um, that part is true too.

I can't guarantee a national prop. 8 would have succeeded; but it would have made it out of Congress. Were there enough red or purple states in 1993 to ratify that? What if the Congress called for state plebicites rather than legislative ratification? There is a very good chance that had Clinton not struck this bargain, gay marriage would be a nonissue now because the U.S. Constitution would have banned it forever.

I'm not in love with Bill Clinton or anything. I know he was disappointing in many ways. But he is not the villan that many in this post are making him out to be.

[closeupready]

142. Okay - peace. I don't think we're going to see things the same, but whatever.

:) :hi:

[YvonneCa]

171. Bill Clinton is definitely not the villian. He isn't...

...perfect, for sure. But he always worked toward very progressive policy changes. He probably compromised more than some would like, though.

[Ken Burch]

135. They succeeded because Clinton CAVED on all those issues rather than fighting

If he'd stood up to the Right even ONCE in his eight years, he'd have stopped them dead in their tracks.

[Deep13]

141. No, not even remotely true.

Clinton stuff up to the RW a lot. But he picked his battles and did not fight the ones he could not win.

[YvonneCa]

172. He was politically very smart. He worked hard to advance...

...progressive goals, BUT he knew how to 'live to fight another day.'

[YvonneCa]

170. EXACTLY! I remember it too. I seems like some....

...here have short memories...or they were still babies back them. :7

[YvonneCa]

169. No it isn't. Research the early years of...

...the Clinton Administration.

[polmaven]

128. Oh, facts, facts, facts!

How boring! It is sooooooooo much more fun to bash a Democratic president, than to bother with dull old facts!

[closeupready]

131. Yes, well, the fact that he chose to sign a shitty bill is his legacy. Can understand why

Clintonistas spin furiously to make it seem like he had no choice. But he did. That and NAFTA and welfare 'reform'. Gosh, what a legacy. :eyes:

[polmaven]

177. I will say just this....

Grow the F up. How about peace and prosperity, how about a 65+% approval rating after those "horrible" 8 years.....How about THAT for a legacy. I think it is the folks afflicted with CDS who spin wildly. History is apparently not your thing, eh?

[closeupready]

190. Okay, I think I'm done with you - let's just agree to disagree on this.

Have a nice night. Peace. :)

[Beacool]

134. Yeah, they are such purist here.

They see everything in black and white. I get the feeling that when Obama leaves office his worst critics will be those on the left. No one, short of a real socialist, can ever please them.

[closeupready]

137. Look. If you don't like defending Bill Clinton shitty record on GLBT rights, you need to put a sock

in it. I was fine applauding his coming around, but you guys can't leave that there - no you have to try and undo what he clearly did to the GLBT community. Dont you dare tell us we don't have a right to have lingering anger at how we were treated. I remember it ALL like it was yesterday.

[Beacool]

144. OK, I guess he should have left everything status quo.

I guess he should have also allowed the conservatives in Congress to push for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Bill tried to make changes and he got pilloried from both sides for the effort.

[closeupready]

147. At worst, he should have left DOMA sitting on his desk, unsigned.

If he felt unable to muster a veto.

[polmaven]

178. And that would have done what, exactly?

You do understand that DOMA was a compromise to HEAD OFF a Constitutional amendment, right? The states in which marriage rights are equal would would not have that ability now. I guess that would have been his fault too, 'cause he should have DONE SOMETHING!!!!! Well, he DID do something!

[Ken Burch]

183. The Constitutional amendment, if DOMA headed it off, would STILL have been headed off

If Clinton had forced the GOP haters to pass DOMA over his veto or if he'd let it go into law without his signature. The sidetracking of that amendment did not require Clinton to be complicit in DOMA's passage.

[closeupready]

187. You guys are working overtime on this, trying to put lipstick on his ugly GLBT legacy, lol.

Whose signature is on the DOMA? George Bush? Ronald Reagan?

[Control-Z]

191. You took the words out of my mouth.

I can just bet who will be one of the biggest Obama haters - probably even before he leaves office.

[YvonneCa]

168. Thank you for this post. It would be really...

...helpful to the discussion if you, or someone here, could post links to news stories of that time. I think people are either too young to remember, or they have forgotten the early years of the Clinton Administration.

[Ken Burch]

185. The amendment would still have been stopped if DOMA had passed OVER Clinton's veto

He didn't have to be COMPLICIT in DOMA to stop the amendment. It would have been enough that DOMA won.

[Hippo_Tron]

202. Actually DADT was a mixed bag and not necesarilly an improvement

Before DADT there was no law on gays in the military, only Pentagon policy to dismiss anybody that was found out to be gay. So I suppose DADT was an improvement over that, but the fact that it was signed into law was a step backward. Had Clinton done absolutely nothing rather than sign DADT, Obama could allow anybody to serve openly in the military by a simple executive order.

[No Elephants]

206. Think about what you are saying. The Republicans, who had a majority

of both houses, wanted a national Constitutional amendment but, according to you, they passed DOMA to defeat their own desire?

Reality is, everyone knows that no Constituional amendment will ever pass again, at least until Congress and the rest of the nation stops being so partisan Why? Every time anyone has tried to get one though Congress, everyone sticks on ridiculous amendments.

Further, Marriage has always been the province of the states and Republicans have claimed to be the party of states's rights. So, in reality, it was DOMA or nonthing. And Bill should have vetoed it and let the Republicans try to override the veto with a 2/3 vote.

[No Elephants]

231. Everyone knew a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage would never get out of Congress. If

they could do that, don't you think they would have amended the Constituion to ban abortion? As far as DADT being an improvement over existing law, maybe in theory. But there have been almost 300 discharges, just since Obama's inauguration.

I hate that it made gays choose between their integrity and their military career. That did not have to be. He Campaign on ending discharges for being gay. He could have signed an executive order saying exactly that. He did not have to let Morris dictate this abomination--and he did not have to send it to Congress.

[Ken Burch]

239. If the "Human Life Amendment" couldn't get out of Congress in the Reagan years

a "One Man, One Woman" amendment could hardly have done so under Clinton.

[JVS]

123. Hmmm champion of the DLC announces support for a liberal position at a time when...

conservadems are holding democratic control of the senate hostage and liberals are forced to walk on eggshells about their issues. He's a gamesman alright. His position would have been impressive as recently as 18 months ago.

[change_notfinetuning]

143. 1 down, many more to go to be a true Democrat n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

146. I'm pissed. He left Obama with a mess to clean up after he supported DADT

and paraded around the country bragging about DOMA!!

I'm just really pissed about this! You wait until you're safely out of the political limelight. COWARD!!

[closeupready]

149. AND remember he encouraged John Kerry to come out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment!

Kerry - being true to form - declined to take that advice and did the right thing.

I really need to stay out of this thread - reliving all these battles is upsetting me. I'm gonna take a break.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

150. Yeah, but Obama gets blamed for policies enacted by both Clinton and Bush!

Imagine that...

[katandmoon]

154. Obama DOESN'T support in same sex marriage. He did once (or claimed to) though. At least Clinton's

thinking is evolving in the right direction. Obama's has DEvolved and that's on HIM. Not on anybody else.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

186. I think Obama is really FOR same-sex marriage. In fact, I think most Democrats serving

in politics are really FOR same-sex marriage but simply cannot admit it due to politics. Until Americans change their attitudes towards the LGBT community, Dems cannot come out FOR gay marriage. Clinton, again, left Obama with a mess. If Obama cannot overturn DADT and DOMA because the Congress is stalling or obstructionists, HE will be blamed for these policies.

Do you understand that?

[No Elephants]

232. Oh, brother. Obama could have suspended DADT discharges on Inauguration Day, with a stroke of his

pen. And you are simply wrong. Democrats can come out for gay marriage. And they should, for as long as the law discriminates, American attitudes will not change. Look at Jim Crow laws. Nothing of consequence changes until they were struck down. As far as Obama getting blamed, OMG. The man campaigned on ending DADT and repealing DOMA. If he had absolutely no power to impact either of them, he should not have done that. So, he should get the blame if he does not keep his campaign promises. Besides, if the laws do change, you can bet he'll take the credit for keeping his campaign promise. So, why on earth should he not take responsiblity if he breaks his campaign promise.


Besides, your entire premise is that it's fine for politicians to care only about themselves and their party, as opposed to doing the correct thing. I reject that, and Heaven help us unless most Democrats (at least) reject that, too.

And, if your best defense of your guy is that he's lying to America, maybe the best thing you can do for his image is keep quiet about it.

[Hippo_Tron]

203. Obama has an ambiguous politician-like stance on gay marriage

On one hand he doesn't support it. On the other hand, he was against Prop 8.

[Lord Helmet]

207. Right. Clinton's a fucking hero now. Pahleeeeeze.

[blue_onyx]

157. Obama is NOT being blamed for DOMA

He's criticized because he said marriage should be between "one man and one woman" and because the repel of the DOMA doesn't seem to be a priority

[MessiahRp]

167. Yep that was Bill Clinton's big contribution to the 2004 campaign and what a pile of shit that was.

They were totally looking to 2008.

Thankfully John Kerry is a man of principle (unlike Clinton) and stuck by what he believed rather than what would score him political points.

Rp

[Ken Burch]

188. Indeed-Clinton actually used the phrase "ditch the gays" in that conversation.

That's on the record.

[Beacool]

159. Another one who thinks it's all about Obama.

Please spare me............

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

237. Because it should be all about Hillary, Bill and/or Chelsea?

[JeanGrey]

158. He goes however the wind blows, and is to his (and her) best

advantage. No surprise here.

[Beacool]

160. How is it to his best advantage?

What political office is he seeking?

[No Elephants]

236. Who said anything about his seeking political office?

[Ohio Joe]

176. I welcome and praise his support

I don't care what he should have done as President.

I don't care if he is just blowing with the wind.

I don't care about anything else in the past, these are separate topics.

I care that he is now supporting equal rights and welcome him on board.

[mamaleah]

179. Now that he is not in a place to win or lose an election. How convenient.

And not surprising.

[TexasObserver]

180. Recommend

[Politicub]

181. Good on him

I'm glad that President Clinton changed his mind. :)

[David Zephyr]

189. And Barbara Bush whispered "I'm pro-choice" when her husband left office.

Yeah.

Not impressed.

[Ken Burch]

192. And CHENEY came out for SSM before Clinton did.

n/t.

[No Elephants]

234. IMO, his exact words are open to interpretation. He never said marriage.

"People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

He never said gay people should be able to get a marriage license. It may well be what he meant, but I think he left room for intepretation. However, Cheney's saying even this has enormous power, IMO, even though he, too, was out of office when he said it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

193. Conan: "He just doesn't support straight marriage."

[Romulox]

197. Clinton: "Made enough money pandering to the Right. Now I'm willing to give lip service

to some 'progressive' causes (if it will keep the cameras rolling!) Can I have some money now?"

[blm]

200. BINGO!!!!!!

.

[Deja Q]

235. So people CAN change their opinions over time?

What a shocking thought.

:sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

241. No one was saying people can't change their opinions

The question was about changing them when it mattered as opposed to when it was too late to make much of any difference.

Bill Clinton has no ability to influence ANYONE in Congress or the Pentagon.

[ibegurpard]

242. who cares

go away Bill
go watch FOX news which your Telecommunications Act of 1996 helped to turn into a monster.

[StevieM]

243. It's interesting how all the people trashing Clinton for this have a total double standard

When Al Gore's position evolved everyone said how great it was, and that it was part of a continued march towards a new understanding on the issue. But somehow Clinton is mocked for his evolution of thought.

The notion that Clinton could have stopped DOMA in '96 is absurd. His veto would have been overwhelmingly overwritten and he would have lost re-election.

People forget that Bill Clinton talked about Gay rights and gay acceptance in a way that no other president ever had before. He really helped to change attitudes in this country, through his leadership and his words. Liberals may have always respected gays and lesbians, but many other Americans, including many Democrats, did not. Clinton really played a major role in changing attitudes among centrist, independent swing-voters.

I can't wait to see how many people claim that if Obama had been in the Senate in 96 that he would have voted against DOMA.

Steve

[ibegurpard]

245. Gore wasn't in a position to take a meaningful stand at the time

Clinton could have just not signed it.
And I believe that Obama would've voted for it.

[mp9200]

246. Good for him

If only he could be eligible for a 3rd term.