Letters to the Editor
-
sounded evasive?
She can do nothing until she sees poll numbers.
Hillary is a total fraud.
-
It's about morality
H. Clinton appears to be hesitant to use terms like immoral when discussing federal policy. That is appropriate since morality is a personal, possibly religious, position. I approve of her first answer, to let others discuss that aspect, while she concerns herself with the appropriate policy issues.
But in this neo-con environment she had to take a "moral" position whether she wanted to or not. No one ever doubted her answer or position. But the news hounds just love "morality" bites for their reporting. Sad.
-
How it's done
MR. RUSSERT: You don’t believe — do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?
SEN. EDWARDS: No.
-Meet The Press, 2/4/07; H/T to philgoblue at Daily Kos.
-
Too bad, she missed a great soundbite opportunity
Hillary: "I do not believe homosexuality is immoral, per se. However, cheating on you spouse or significant other? Yeah, that's a no brainer."
Now, instead of dodging angry gays she'd be massages Bill's bruised ego by explaining she was talking about his nemesis Newt Gingrich's recent psuedo confession. Two men with one stone. Priceless.
-
Is going to someone's country and blowing out the brain's of they and their kin immoral?
Since when is morality a requirement for the military?
To become a priest, sure.
Busdriver, maybe?
Marine or Soldier, probably not.
Someone should do a study - I would guess that those who are anti-social are less likely to suffer PTSD.
None of which is to say Gay people are immoral or anti-social because they aren't. They are just regular folks who have a small difference that is somewhat unusual and less noticeable than many other things that bigots obsess about.
Maybe we should ban bigots from the military and that way we can stop worrying about weather women, gays, blacks, jews, Catholics, etc belong there.
-
No suprise, retraction of her previous statement is highly deceptive
It should be pointed out to readers that when Hillary says "And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming" she is essentially endorsing the view of General Pace, albeit in a highly deceptive manner. As a veteran, I am very familiar with the UCMJ, or Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is a justice system of archaic laws and penalty's. The standards of this system have more in common with legal system employed by authoritarian middle-east governments than that enjoyed by civilians here in are own country. Things that are explicitly defined by the UCMJ "illegal" behavior for service members include oral and anal sex (for both hetero and gay service members), homosexual acts, and adultery. Penalties can include not only imprisonment and expulsion from the military, but also forced labor. Breaches of civil liberties to this degree would be tolerated in the civilian criminal justice system, and it should not be tolerated in the UCMJ. By allowing the standards of "inappropriate or unbecoming" behavior she is sidestepping the question as well as responsibility.
-
Please don't pretend to be naive.
Hillary has been plagued by baseless and malicious rumors that she is a lesbian since the day Clinton first began running for President. She knows perfectly well what the right-wing bloggers would do with any statement that seemed to condone homosexual behavior.
Of course, Edwards has been subjected to the same sort of slime-mongering, as we all know, but before we sneer at Hillary for trying to avoid a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question, let's see what the right wing noise machine does to Edwards for being more forthright. Some may already be declaring this the final nail in the coffin of his candidacy.
-
Not again
Hillary Clinton's equivocating has got to be causing her to lose support among Democrats. I'm certainly losing any enthusiasm I had for her candidacy.
Edwards is certainly winning points with me for doing the opposite.
I really, really, don't want another Democratic candidate for President who parses words like the most important thing is what the Republicans will think.
-
No equivocations on equality.
Hilary should known better, and her idiot aides show have known better. And gay people should stop Uncle Tomming her, and all the other Democratic candidates, and lay it out clean and simple and crystal clear, you're not going to win the nomination without the gay vote.
Like Patti Smith says...People Have The Power. The last couple of presidential elections show us that 1 or 2% can make a world of difference. The last midterm election shows us that 1 or 2% of the electorate just staying home and not voting can make a huge difference. Now when it's the fundraising period, I'm not going to give money to an equivocator. I won't vote for someone who won't support my civil rights.
It's the 21st century. Either support full gay equality or be prepared to lose.
-
A fine answer
As someone, though not gay, who is close to the gay community, I don't see anything wrong with her first and second comments.
She's an elected official. Her morals, like everyone else's, are subjective and are not unanimous. It is for others to decide what's moral and what's not.
If my elected officials thought homosexuality was immoral, I couldn't care less. It's when they create laws and policy that curtail GLBT rights.
In a side note, I think progressives should stop shooting themselves in the foot by nitpicking every little thing Hillary says or does. If she becomes the Democratic nominee, I'd infer that many liberals would stay home than vote. Her response is truly a dull thing to pick on.
-
Suggested Q & A
Journalist: Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
Hillary: AS long as you are married any sex you can get is good.
-
"Where did I leave those darned talking points on gays in the military?"
Good for John Edwards and John Warner (decency CAN be bi-partisan). Another Hilary boo-boo results from not being able to wing it without consulting her pollsters beforehand. How hard was it to come up with the word "No"? I'm beginning to think she is tone-deaf politically, the polar opposite of her political animal husband who can extemporise at the drop of a hat.
Obama didn't exactly cover himself in glory on this one either. I wonder when his free ride will end.
-
"Are other people saying it's not immoral?
Then I'll be brave and say it's not immoral, too." Hiding behind the shield of Warner in her second comment was more reprehensible to me than anything else. Why did she have to do that? Chickenshit.