09/20/2007
Hillary Clinton: I'm Not a Lesbian
New York magazine is reporting on a forthcoming issue of the Advocate in which Senator Hillary Clinton is questioned on both "long-standing rumors" regarding her sexuality and whether or not her stance on civil unions is just a front for a more deep-seated genuine belief that marriage should be offered to all U.S. citizens.
Says Clinton of the lesbian rumors: "People say a lot of things about me, so I really don’t pay any attention to it. It’s not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say.”
Kennedy also asks the presidential hopeful whether her position privately is for marriage equality even though she hides behind one supporting civil unions.
Says Clinton: "I would tell you [if it was]. This is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically."
And I'm sure Jerry Sanders would have said the same thing at one point.
Posted 9:30 AM EST by Andy Towle in Democratic Party, Gay Marriage, Hillary Clinton, I'm Not Gay, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Can we get any more self-centered? And I'm not talking about Hilary...
Posted by: Shawn | Sep 20, 2007 9:58:34 AM
I'm a huge fan of hers, but even I'm beginning to wonder of it really is impossible for her to answer a question directly. It's getting a little infuriating.
Posted by: MT | Sep 20, 2007 10:01:55 AM
Its interesting to see how many ways can she can word "I don't support equality for gays and lesbians."
Posted by: JOHN IN STANTON | Sep 20, 2007 10:06:59 AM
"I am where I am right now."
Mazel Tov -- so am I!
And I wouldn't vote for you for anything in the world BITCH!!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 20, 2007 10:13:52 AM
So who exactly would you vote for then--Romney? Thompson? Giuliani? Because after the primaries are over, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Kucinich and Gravel won't be standing, so you will be left with a Dem. candidate who supports civil unions and a Republican who doesn't. So take your pick.
And I agree with Shawn: That question was self-centered and so much BS.
Posted by: Charles | Sep 20, 2007 10:42:22 AM
hey dingdongs. hillary can't even hint that she's for gay marriage and get elected in this country. wake up and smell the politics. you really want your friends to lose repeatedly because they fall on their sword for you? then join the green party or the libertarians. and have fun, cuz you'll never be in power, which means you'll never get to ever try to make real change. yeesh.
Posted by: dcposter | Sep 20, 2007 10:47:57 AM
I don't think she is talking BS. More and more what Hill is saying sounds like it is coming from the heart. No doubt some of these things she says are chunks taken from her stump speeches, but I must say, lately I really detect a new sense of warmth from her. I saw this during her her HRC interview on Logo and it even feels evident in her new health care reform plan. She cares about Americans and the LGBT community.
Posted by: Ryan | Sep 20, 2007 10:56:21 AM
For the record, I'm not a lesbian.
Posted by: the queen | Sep 20, 2007 11:00:15 AM
i knew it wouldn't take long for the baby-with-the-bathwater and cut-off-the-nose yahoos to chime in on this one. if any of you nitwits knew politics at all, you would realize that hillary has been running a NATIONAL campaign in the primaries. she knows that the repugs will use whatever she says now to swift-boat her in the general election, should she win the nomination. what is it about american politics you malcontents don't understand? in a perfect world, hillary would say: yes, i believe in same-sex marriage; yes i believe in government run socialized health care; yes, we should pull out of iraq as of yesterday. i'm sorry, but the stakes are way too high for the all-or-nothing caterwauling of some of you bitches. (pardon the mixed metaphor, but this just totally pisses me off.)
Posted by: nic | Sep 20, 2007 11:01:51 AM
I prefer Edwards. More authentic--Clinton is so manufactured.
PS. I hate the way everyone refers to candidates by their last name, except the woman candidate.
Posted by: dc-20008 | Sep 20, 2007 11:02:13 AM
to harsh? ;)
well, i'm heartened to find that three posters after David Ehrenstein more or less agree with me, if not in so many words.
Posted by: nic | Sep 20, 2007 11:11:44 AM
i know. that should be, "too" harsh?
Posted by: nic | Sep 20, 2007 11:15:58 AM
Hillary is nothing but a corporatist fraud who will do whatever the bosses tell her to. Don't fall for this woman, she is not what the country needs right now.
Posted by: realitythink | Sep 20, 2007 11:33:36 AM
She's right, she isn't a lesbian, she's actually a Republican under the guise of being a Democrat.
Posted by: Sebastian | Sep 20, 2007 11:44:26 AM
I too have mixed feelings about Hillary. But I think it was kind of crossing a line for a journalist to ask her if she's a lesbian. It almost like how people would accuse strong, outspoken women of being lesbians.
Posted by: Meeg | Sep 20, 2007 11:49:20 AM
For years Republicans and homophobes have been snickering that she's a lesbian. I guess they can't believe that a straight woman would be so self confident.
I'm not a big fan of hers. I think she panders and is completely disingenuous but I will vote for her over any of the Republicans running (including Guliani).
Posted by: db | Sep 20, 2007 12:34:04 PM
She's like an awkward version of her husband. I didn't even hear a direct denial of the lesbian question. Glad to see the Advocate asking direct questions of concern to the community--maybe they'll ask Rudy if he's bi.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 20, 2007 12:51:05 PM
Hey -- I'm not a lesbian either. Can I be President now?
Sebastian gets it.
We don't need another FAKE PHONY ELECTION.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 20, 2007 12:52:54 PM
Herr Ehrenstein et al., now that you've had your collective hissy fits, might we humbly ask whom you would support instead? Or are you simply content to let the homohating Repugs have the White House for another 12 years and the Supreme Court until after most of you will long be dead just so you'll have something to bitch about?
This ain't a beauty pageant where we're supposed to make our decisions based on how we feel about a candidate but how many of their positions we agree with. Any Dem, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and the also-rans at his/her worst is better than ANY Repug at his/her best.
"Equality for gays" is far larger and broader an issue than marriage equality alone. Most gays and lesbians are not in relationships in any case.
Only 537 votes changed History in 2000.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 20, 2007 1:05:15 PM
I mean, her fashion sense is criminal, but it's not bad enough to accuse her of being a lesbian, for god's sake.
btw, gosh, she really looks fat in that picture!
Posted by: Jordan | Sep 20, 2007 1:14:25 PM
what a stupid line of questioning! What did they expect? That she would say, yes I eat pussy for breakfast and i want to marry Condi when she leaves office???
She is looking to get elected president: don't forget that people like Sherri from the View vote...
Posted by: ReasonBased | Sep 20, 2007 2:39:55 PM
oh well, and so it goes.
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | Sep 20, 2007 3:04:44 PM
But can we verify her claim?
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | Sep 20, 2007 3:05:54 PM
Lesbian or not, I wont vote for her, so hopefully I will have another choice. If not I would vote for whoever runs against her. I think she panders to gays for the vote and could really careless about us.
I would ratehr vote for someone that I know here I stand with them (even if they are against me)than vote for someone who would lie to my face. Hillary would look at you and lie to your face.
Posted by: John | Sep 20, 2007 6:20:42 PM
Mmph. I'm really getting irritated with her obviously stalling on the marriage issue. It's clear to me that she understands that marriage is the real solution, and that she's going to fight for it when it becomes more politically expedient. But if more major political figures aren't willing to have the balls of the likes of Jerry Sanders to say what they really understand to be true, that time may not come for a long time.
Remember what she said during the HRC Debate? "This hasn't been a long-term fight yet." Not only is that statement flatly untrue, but why does it have to be a long-term fight?
Posted by: Baylor Johnson | Sep 20, 2007 6:34:01 PM