Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. While it's true Geffen (now) uses his considerable wealth to fund good causes - he is um... not the nicest guy in the world especially if you have somehow displeased him be it in business, bed or anything in between.

   His pettiness is legendary as his deliberate cruety (and yes generousity but fuck it, if you are boning the hottest of the hot at 60 years old there is just as much quid as pro quo going on )and then there is the mysterious and untimely death of his much maligned young biographer...

   It somehow sets the universe off balance when someone who has been given so much takes such pleasure in the unhappiness of others so everything thing he says outside of business is suspect.

   However, he is right about Hillary and her stance on the war and while I understand her reasoning - she has to be seen as a hawk in order to answer the can a woman be warrior question and she is nothing but not astute regarding public perception - it's her reluctance to have a possibly unpopular point of view that is troubling and actually moot considering the general consensus about the war now anyway.

   It would go a long way in repairing the riff in her base if she were to admit that she was wrong to not once question the Bush war machine as it steam rolled its way through the house , senate and the press in the run up to the war. It's not just a matter of her receiving faulty information but of applying faulty logic.

   I think most new yorkers were baffled after 9/11 when we more or less left Afghanistan without finding the man responsible or even all of the men who supported him and marched into Iraq without skipping a beat.

   If the average joe armed with nothing more than common sense and a healthy contempt for an increasingly ineffectual press (especially cable news which is as responsible for this war as the neoconartist) could have figured that something was indeed rotten in the state of Denmark surely Hillary should could have at least raised a sceptical brow.

   Still, if she wins the nomination I will work for her campaign for the obvious lefty reasons and I dig her man - warts and all.

   Posted by: Giovanni | Feb 21, 2007 9:18:34 PM

   
   

2. Great, just what the Democrats need, fighting within. This is pathetic. At a time when the Democrats should be reaping in the benefits of an ill begotten Republican presidency, we have third-grade bickering. America is a sinking ship, and I'm one rat that is looking for shore...

   Posted by: Cory | Feb 21, 2007 9:41:41 PM

   
   

3. I totally agree with you Leland. Obama has been rolling around touting himself as the moralist democrat with thunder in his heels and heaven on his side. Im not sure if its some type of ploy for conservative votes or its sincere. Either way its just a bit too much Bible thumping for my liking. I wont fault the man for having faith but once you start associating policies with God's will its down hill there.

   Posted by: Toto | Feb 21, 2007 9:47:15 PM

   
   

4. Maureen Down is tacky. Geffen should not have said this. There are WAY more important things to be talking about.

   Posted by: adam | Feb 21, 2007 10:12:29 PM

   
   

5. What about Wesley Clark? When did everyone lose their boner for him & the sweater? And if Rudy dresses in drag for Saturday Night Live and moves in with gays after his divorce, isn't that worth lauding a bit? I'll wait for Jerry Brown to enter the race & then vote for him....

   Posted by: Daniel | Feb 21, 2007 10:55:04 PM

   
   

6. sorry leland, i understand the doma just fine. you missed my point re. it vetoes any prospect of marriage between anyone other than man/woman scenario whether it be internally driven or not.

   Posted by: sean | Feb 22, 2007 12:26:49 AM

   
   

7. Daniel, the only reason Rudy moved in with gays after his divorce is so he do recon on their apartment. After he sends them to the camps, he's gonna give the place to his mistress.

   And as for David. Dear, sweet, hooker-thrashing David. His ego must need another shoveful of coal. He is the lowest.

   Posted by: Becks07 | Feb 22, 2007 12:33:58 AM

   
   

8. I left out the fact that, unlike for instance SF Mayor Gavin Newsom, Obama fails to see the similarity of laws that once made marrying a person of a different race a jailable crime with the bans on gay marriage, even though his mother twice, and his father and stepfather could have been jailed in the US at one time for THEIR mixed race marriages. And that the Bible would surely have condemned them, too. But same gender marriage—THAT's different. NOT!

   The point is that Obama is pushing more religion back into politics just when we most need LESS! A Democratic government soaked in pompous piety and robed in religiosity is no more tolerable than a Republican government oozing the same. Or would he, unlike the legislator in Maryland, propose at his Inauguration he put his hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible [sic]?

   Posted by: Leland | Feb 22, 2007 12:42:06 AM

   
   

9. No, Sean, it does not. The act reads: "Powers reserved to the states:
   No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

   Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:
   In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

   I can tolerate difference of opinion. I will not tolerate willful, gross ignorance.

   Posted by: Leland | Feb 22, 2007 12:50:57 AM

   
   

10. Leland, I tend to agree and respect most of what you post and will continue to, however, I think it bears saying that the hope of having "less" religion in our politics is not going to happen.

    Right or wrong, that genie is out of the bottle and rather than rail against it, we need to embrace it and use it our (non-crazy) advantage. In my view, one of the reasons the Democrats lost to Bush was our/their reluctance to engage on the religious level. Lir it or not, our country is totally in the grip of "faith" and by standing up and saying what we believe in this context prevents the Democrats AND Gay men and women from being swift-boated as god-less, abortion loving heathens.

    I don't pretend to know who is going to win the nomination on other side, but I do know that at the moment I am attracted (not sexually) to a candidate who is not a rich, white guy or a Clinton and that he's talking the religious talk is not that off putting...yet.

    Posted by: hoya86 | Feb 22, 2007 12:59:38 AM

    
    

11. Leland, you rock!!

    Posted by: silverskreen | Feb 22, 2007 1:43:03 AM

    
    

12. yup. you're right. i stand corrected. my definition was wrong but my point wasn't... clinton opened the door for this to occur at the state level after having wooed the gay vote earlier in his career. to me his administration reeked of hypocrisy. therefore, i don't hold much hope for her. geffen was right on at least one point, "they lie with such ease."

    Posted by: sean | Feb 22, 2007 2:28:01 AM

    
    

13. If you are going to bring up Tammy Wynette, spell her name correctly Dammit! I am tired of folks slandering my gay idol!

    Posted by: ken Atkins | Feb 22, 2007 2:40:19 AM

    
    

14. You won't be seeing this Democratic infighting story on CNN's Larry King anytime soon - unless of course Hillary starts emerging from limos sans panties or Obama claims he could be the father of Anna's baby. I'm just hoping Britney gets cleaned up by '08 and that a blonde doesn't go missing off a cruise ship right before the elections - otherwise a large portion of America won't put down their Bibles and Big Macs long enough to care to find out what these two politicos really want for this country.

    Posted by: Malibu Boy | Feb 22, 2007 4:48:02 AM

    
    

15. Time once again for a political reality check (from someone who has actually advised winning candidates): Hillary is going to be the Dem's nominee. We all better start dealing with it because it will happen. HRC has a solid 30% devoted to her; they who are most likely to vote in the PRIMARIES. Edwards is yesterday's news and tagged as a loser with the elitist yet fumbling Kerry. On Obama: there is no way this country will elect a president whose name is Hussein (even if it is his middle name). There is simply too much ingrained prejudice in the most likely voters. They will lie to the pollsters (see other thread) and say they would consider a black man but they will go into that booth and vote against him. The political infighting could split the Dem’s three ways thereby opening the way for a brokered candidate such as Al Gore.
    There is a similar situation on the Repub side. Mitt Romney stands no chance of getting the nomination because he is a member of a religion that is considered a cult by the Repub base. In addition he is tagged as a flip-flopper (a la Kerry) for his previous support of gay rights and abortion. John McCain is too volatile and has never appealed to the Repub base (who vote in the PRIMARIES). Moreover in tacking to the right (by kissing up to Falwell et al.) McCain will lose support from moderates and independents.
    Giuliani does not play well long-term outside NYC with the most likely Repub voters. He is too ethnic, too (nominally) Catholic, has two nasty divorces that will make tabloid coverage, and has long supported gay rights (he lived with a gay couple when he walked out on his second wife) and abortion. He is anathema to the Repub base. Giuliani and McCain are also incredibly thin skinned. Each will surely have a "Macaca" moment during the campaign where they will self-immolate.
    Jeb Bush? God forbid! What is this country turning into, a low rent version of the War of the Roses? More to the point, his Mexican wife will not let him run and his drug addicted daughter would make tabloid fodder. Colin Powell? Again, his wife will not let him run. Wesley Clark? What is his base? It is too thin and lacking in financial power. Brownback, Huckabee, Richardson, inter alia, are distractions at best they will not command more than ~4% of the vote. The party machines (in both parties) will swat them away. HRC in particular has built a very effective and well funded organization that consistently plays balls to the wall politics. DefCon4 is their usual initial response.
    Time to deal with reality folks. Each of us has a dream candidate but the party that is successful next round must select a nationally electable candidate. The '08 election will be won by the party that puts aside ideological purity (looking at you Move.on dot fools and you Repub Christionists) and selects an electable nominee. HRC is by far the biggest money raiser for BOTH parties. Put her name on a solicitation and the money rolls in for both the Dem's and the Repub's. But she never breaks above 40% support nationally. She has die hard supporters but an equal number loath her and her husband with an illogical hatred that cannot be overcome nationally. The winning candidate must appeal to the large moderate middle in this country: strong on defense, parsimonious on social spending (that is reality folks), and highly suspicious of governmental intrusion into personal behaviour issues (e.g., abortion and gay rights).
    This coming election is going to be interesting. The field is the most wide open in a generation. There is no anointed candidate on the Repub side and HRC has been running for President for twenty years. For clues to its outcome look to Nancy Pelosi as a woman with national power and platform. Her performance (and this is what it is) will have a direct effect on Hillary's chances. If the war in Iraq is still being fought (and most believe it will be) there is very little chance that this country will elect a woman. The only chance of that happening would be if Hillary were to run against Condi. That will never happen. Condi has three strikes against her: she is (1) female; (2) black; and (3) lesbian (the least well-kept secret in DC and one that HRC has already hinted at in chiding Condi as “long-term unmarried”).
    A key indicator will be financing. HRC will eventually suck up all the big money available from the Dem's despite their current flirtation with the flavor of the month candidate. The Dem power brokers will realize soon enough that Obama is simply not electable this round. He is too young and inexperienced and there remains too much multi-front prejudice among likely voters. It is unclear who could/will command the same financial backing from the Repub's. (I have a hunch many will sit this one out as the top 5% in wealth have made previously unimagined profits the last six years and may simply keep their financial powder dry this coming election cycle, although Rudy is the most reliable good for Wall Street business candidate.)
    Still too long a post but I edited with paragraph breaks for those who kvetched previously that reading made their brains hurt and they would rather talk about Britney Nicole Jolie and her relationship with Kevin Jake Pitt. Encourage everyone you know to get involved and to vote. Gays will get our rights only when the majority (who even now support us) translate that opinion into ballot performance.

    Posted by: rudy | Feb 22, 2007 8:45:51 AM

    
    

16. You're all crazy! The election is 18 months away and there's NO way you can honestly state who's going to be the nominee at this time. Look at history and you'll see that the nominee is NEVER the leader at this time in the campaign cycle, I don't care if your last name is Clinton. The public tires of those in their face for that amount of time. Obama, however you feel about him, is fresh (think Kennedy), young (again, think Kennedy), and he's a new face (and color, as Kennedy was the new religion) with new ideas, he's not afraid to speak his mind, and he's entering a campaign in the midst of a war that the public wants out of (again...think Kennedy). It's WAY too early to begin saying who's going to win, but there are lots of signs pointing in that direction.

    Posted by: Wayne | Feb 22, 2007 9:09:32 AM

    
    

17. I will vote for no candidate that is going to flood what limited airwaves I choose to view, with campaign garbage more than a year from the PRIMARY.

    Secondly, I am growing to detest Hillary. I sort of tolerated her before, but now... this is just too much. I will not vote for her or support her.

    Barack, good luck in the shark pool. I am sure at some point a fabricated story about a mutual gay encounter at bible camp will surface at a most inoportune time for your campaign.

    Posted by: Rad | Feb 22, 2007 9:12:01 AM

    
    

18. Love how Geffen thinks Clinton was personally reckless = the pot calling the kettle a POT, lol. I like Hillary a lot and I like Obama just as much. There are great arguments for both of them and for Edwards—the others are not contenders. I believe any of the three of them would defeat McCain (he's going to be a laughingstock of a candidate—Dole-minus), Giuliani (never, ever get the nom and a terrible candidate) or Romney ("Mommy...what's a...Mormon?"), though I'm not expecting a cakewalk. But most of the arguments against this or that candidate are of the calculating and not ideological kind: Is Hillary too disliked by others? Is Obama too black? Is McCain too old? Things that are not about what you yourself BELIEVE. That is one thing Geffen is slamming the Clintons for (not standing up for things they personally BELIEVE) and yet he is using the same kinds of calculated arguments about her being too ambitious or the country having some imaginary "Clinton fatigue." I respect Geffen's opinions and input and think it's great when moguls use their money for more than just porn-star sex. But he's not Moses.

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Feb 22, 2007 9:16:27 AM

    
    

19. "Was Hillary sincere when she voted for the Iraq war? Is she sincere now that she won't admit it was a mistake?"
    Posted by: SGR |

    See that's the kind of hypocritical coverage Hillary has to deal with in the press, and I find so bizarre the public recuperates all those tales without discernment.

    So she voted for the war in Irak, how long ago was it? 3 years ago? Let's see: at the time there were heightened feelings of insecurity in the US about terrorism, and the government was misleading everyone with proof that Irak had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam failure to allow inspectors in the country was proof he was danger for the US. It was also badly regarded to not show a united front as a country against the "enemy".

    You therefore have to differentiate a vote FOR the war in Irak, from a vote OF support of the government during that time. And you must also differentiate Hillary Clinton the president candidate, from the *NY senator*. As a senator for NY, which was hit the most by the Sept 11 attacks, there is no way in the world Hillary could attempt to go against the government in a war that the public wanted. She voted the way her CONSTITUANTS wanted and expected, cause she represented them. That makes her a good senator. But she'll never blame her constituants cause she knows she has to take responsibility for her own vote as a great politician.

    Also, it's very easy for us to stand now and say the war was a mistake, but the numbers speak for themselves: When the war began in 2003 a whopping 72% of Americans were in favor of the war (so chances are it might include a few people in this thread). By 2004, half already thought it was a mistake, and in 2007 it's 70% who oppose it. Something to think about.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16578451

    Posted by: Da | Feb 22, 2007 9:58:46 AM

    
    

20. DA kind of proves the point about Hillary Clinton. She voted for the war because it was the politically opportune thing to do. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Many of us knew that. Iraq was no threat to the US. Many of us knew that too. Clinton takes positions not out of principle but out of opportunism. The end result? She is a politician who opposes gay marriage, supported the war (still kinda supports it as near as I can tell), opposes gay marriage, supports Israel carte blanche, supports blatantly undemocratic anti-flag burning legislation, etc. etc. Just because we want her, a woman, to be progressive does not mean she is. The time is now to expose her so when we do unite behind a candidate, the candidate is the best one.

    Posted by: ish | Feb 22, 2007 11:05:58 AM

    
    

21. "Whoever is the nominee will win" ??? I'm not so sure. Americans elected and re-elected an incompetent fool. We can't afford another 4-year term of GOP cronies running the gov't and appointing judges. Both Hillary & Obama have problems (even beyond the the questionable electability of a female or African-American). The swiftboaters will attack mercilessly.
    As for me, right now I believe JOHN EDWARDS offers the best chance of victory.....and his platform is pretty darn good too.

    Posted by: JONNY NYNY2FLFL | Feb 22, 2007 11:15:14 AM

    
    

22. "Whoever is the nominee is going to win" ??? I'm not so sure. Americans elected and re-elected an incompetent fool. We can't afford another 4-year term of GOP cronies running the gov't and appointing judges. Both Hillary & Obama have problems as candidates (even beyond the questionable electability of a female or African-American). The "swiftboaters" will attack mercilessly.
    As for me, right now I believe JOHN EDWARDS offers the best chance of victory....and his platform is pretty darn good too.

    Posted by: JONNY NYNY2FLFL | Feb 22, 2007 11:25:00 AM

    
    

23. Thanks, Rudy, for your interesting analysis [and one would think that most of the Towle Jungen would never complain about anything being too long].

    Hoya: I fervently agree with you that the Dems generally and nonRepug gays specifically have absurdly contributed to this modern version of a political Inquisition that we're in by 1. ignoring the signs thirty years ago that religious nuts were arming for a "holy/values war" and, 2. once no one sane could doubt it had started, CONTINUED to ignore it because of a combination of underestimating the size of its army and the power of its weapons and not able to figure out a way to respond, imagining that it would somehow go away, I suppose.

    The Dems STILL haven't formed a real plan to "reclaim" the "moral center," though, I'm guessing that Obama thinks that he has, when, as I ranted above, in too many ways he is only feeding the monster that would devour us, particularly when he literally attributes his "prejudices" to "God." They will "hear" that they've been right all along; and should keep waging their scorched earth policy against us.

    Some national gay groups are belatedly trying to reframe the discussion in terms that will appeal to those more religiously observant; NGLTF is to be commended in particular for the coaliton they've formed. Some groups, as others have for years, are trying to change people's minds by disputing the interpretation of those few passages in the Bible which allude to homosexuality. As someone who grew up in a "Holy Roller" church, was once a lay minister himself, I assure you and them that is a losing battle, a waste of time and resources. For the most religious, asking them to deny what has seemed so obvious for centuries [the passages ARE, regardless of how much historial and hermeneutical acrobatics one goes through] is like asking them to amputate a limb.

    The overall approach the NGLTF-affiliated group [www.welcomingresources.org] is taking is one with far more potential for opening minds and hearts while not asking them to close their Bibles. It STARTS WITH emphasizing the overriding message of Jesus [face it, the majority of our enemies in the US are "Christian"] about loving others; "the greatest of these is love;" "God is love and he that abideth in love abideth with God and God with him," etc. It has most brilliantly been demonstrated in the PSAs created by the United Church of Christ, e.g., "Bouncer" in which club-like velvet rope guards in front of a huge church turn away people that don't fit in, including a gay male couple, a person of color, and a handicapped person. It then segues into a scene of a large group of people facing the camera of all types, including some who were turned away, with a gentle voice over by Tom Skerritt saying that the UCC and God turns no one away.

    The problem is that very few people have seen it, and its sequels, because most networks refused to carry them even though they give FREE time during campaigns to candidates demonizing us and sell time year-round to leaders of the relgious antigay industry to do the same.

    The solution is not supporting a candidate like Obama who is, essentially, only annointing religious bigotry] but to stop sending our money to maintain HRC's Emerald City, and for rooms on PlanetOut/RSVPs "first Transatlantic gay cruise on the Queen Mary 2" ["where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also"] and send money to the UCC and Welcoming Resources [of which UCC is a member] and Soulforce to be able to turn their fledgling efforts into a well-financed machine adjunct to the national and local elections that cannot be ignored by the networks, radio, and print monopolies, and partner with the Democratic Party and individual candidates. It is time, too, for faith-affiliated groups such as Dignity to stop "playing church" and waiting, as they have for decades, for the Vatican et al. to "see the light" and embrace them. You can, and thousands have, die waiting. Better to demand that THEY live up to the Christ's teachings of loving all, and leaving all to God to judge, OR start practicing ALL of the prohibitions in Leviticus which they have conveniently ignored.

    Posted by: Leland | Feb 22, 2007 11:31:19 AM

    
    

24. Many of us knew that.
    Posted by: ish |

    Make that 28% of Americans (less than a third).

    Altough it might be a smaller percentage who opposed the war for the specific reason of knowing for certain that Irak posed no threat to the US..The other reasons that were mostly put forth in America and abroad:
    -Preference for international diplomatic action over the use of military force.
    -Refusal to enter a war with opposition from the rest of the coalition, including the UN.
    -The belief that terrorism would in fact increase due to the invasion of Irak.
    -etc etc..
    http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02212003.html

    The republican party in power laid it out so there was other options but to go with their plan. The public was purposedly misled into supporting the war: that's the real story here.

    Posted by: Da | Feb 22, 2007 11:38:50 AM

    
    

25. "for those in favor of miss hillary, remember she is still the wife of the a-hole who signed into reality the defense of marriage act thereby nullifying any chance of gay marriage being legislated in any state that subscribes to said act. schmucks"

    I'd give Clinton a break. For the following reasons, if it weren't for DOMA, no matter how repugnant it is, there'd have been a stronger move for a Constitutional amendmant writing gays out of marriage. Once that was in effect we'd be screwed for the next 200 years. With a law, and DOMA is just a law, 1) the States could still make strides individually 2) most of the zeal for passing a Constitutional measure was abbated 3) in time, when opinions mature, Doma can be repealed

    This is the same with Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's repugnant, but before it, there were wholescale witch hunts and investigations. Clinton was president, not a dictator, there's only so much political capital he can expend, even for us. I remember him touring army and navy facilities before coming out with the DADT policy. He wanted to open everything up, but the public/military/political opinion at the time was too strong. So, he chose a policy that edged us forward. It was the right policy, as now opinions have moved further, and the next president can repeal DADT and open the way for gays to serve openly.

    Posted by: Frozen North | Feb 22, 2007 11:56:57 AM

    
    
« Previous | Next (more comments...) »

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: