Ann Coulter | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | Jason Bellini | News

BigGayDeal.com

Hillary Clinton on ENDA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, McCain, and Coulter

Over the weekend, CBS News on LOGO's Jason Bellini posted a brief interview with Senator Hillary Clinton in which he asks her what she whispered to Obama following the last Democratic debate as well as why she doesn't always mention gay rights in her speeches. Bellini also asks her if she believes transgender individuals need protection in the workplace. Clinton responds: "I believe all Americans deserve protection in the workplace." He also asks her about her priorities once in office, John McCain, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

George Stephanopolous also talked to Clinton over the weekend about a number of things, among them Ann Coulter's recent endorsement. Clinton's response?

"Cough, cough..."

Previously...
Ann Coulter: I'd Campaign for Hillary if McCain is GOP Candidate [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Could one of you Obama supporters tell me why I should vote for him when he can't even be bothered to respond for Logo's request for an interview? That's disrespectful of the community in general, I think.

    Posted by: EnigmaticAnswer | Feb 4, 2008 12:00:54 PM


  2. Maybe he doesn't feel the need to do some last-minute pandering because he has been supportive of gay rights all along.

    Posted by: R | Feb 4, 2008 1:04:01 PM


  3. Maybe he's afraid someone in gay media actually has some balls and so would challenge him on his smoke and mirrors duplicity on DOMA and his lie about passing gay rights in Illinois and his "take civil unions and be glad ya got em" while his own denomination supports MARRIAGE equality and his mathematically challenged definition of "FULL equality" and his having ignored for months "The Advocate's" request for an interview until he needed to try to do damage control over McClurkingate, and, even then, told them he would be available for no more than 15 minutes which allowed him to run out the clock on anything of substance like HOW he proposes to advance those LGBT issues that he "supports," thus resulting, other than his naked lie about the gay rights bill in Illinois, in his effective saying: "the Obama Donnie McClurkin Show goes on so go fuck your whiny selves, bitches, and stop challenging me! I AM OZ!!!! The great and powerful! Who are you? WHO are you???"

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 4, 2008 2:13:56 PM


  4. Michael,

    Even if everything you say is true, Obama would still be an improvement on any of the Republicans. He might think he's paying lip service to these issues, but a President Obama's going to have a hard time reversing course in this era of 24/7 blogging, YouTube, and cable TV.

    Now, he might not actively pursue any gay rights legislation, but we don't really need him THAT much. Certainly, Obama will sign Matthew Shepard and ENDA because he won't want to seem like he's quarreling with a Democratic Congress. He's all about appearances, and he won't do anything to jeopardize his slick image.

    I don't expect much progress on repealing DADT and DOMA, however. And that's where more active leadership from the president might help. But after Bush-Cheney, either Obama or Hillary would be an improvement.

    Posted by: John | Feb 4, 2008 2:35:47 PM


  5. I've consistenly subscribed, John, to the saying that Obama at his worst would be better than any Republican at his best. But there are several primaries still to go in which Democratic voters are asked to choose who they think would be the best President or candidate, depending on how you look at it and how much you think anyone can guess, worthless polls aside, who is more electable.

    After being initially thrilled that we might have our first woman or black President, "does not compute" alarms began going off in my head about Obama, and the more I looked behind the curtain the more I found I didn't like, such as the outright lie I referenced above about his alleged role in passing an Illinois LGBT law.

    Do I think Hillary's never lied; that there's any politician who hasn't? No. But that was such an unnecessary lie, so easy to disprove, though I'm only one of two people I've discovered who have bothered to look into it at all.

    He could have simply told the truth; that he'd been involved with previous bills but not the one that passed. But he didn't. When I first read what he did say I believed it, too, even though it was in the middle of an interview about McClurkingate and I did not buy one spoonful of the steaming bullshit he was serving up about that.

    Black writer Rod McCollum wrote that "Obama folded like a house of cards"--the wrong way--during McClurkingate, so why should we expect him to do any better in real showdowns with Congress, etc.

    Hillary is far from perfect, but one of the things she's most criticized for—her assertiveness—could put the "bully" in "bully pulpit" that we desperately need.

    Obama maybe as VP, or HUD Secretary, or UN Ambassador, etc. But I don't think he's ready to be President and LGBT issues are but one of many reasons.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 4, 2008 3:39:16 PM


  6. I agree with some of these previous posts - I don't think Obama has enough experience yet and I haven't seen a lot of substance behind his charisma. Then, the other day, I read (I think in the NY Times) that one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors is the nuclear power industry. And I thought about how a lot of the more liberal Democrats are embracing Obama - yet he's being financed by a very, well, radioactive constituency. That's not coalition building, that's gross. I'm voting for Hillary. I like her backbone and I think that because she is strong and has more years of experience under her belt she will be better able to deliver a lot of the action and support that will be needed to advance GLBT rights issues at the federal level. Just wish she was more charismatic and that she didn't look so much like Shirley Jones from the Partridge Family era.

    Posted by: Matthew | Feb 4, 2008 5:39:42 PM


  7. Hillary's done an interview with the "Advocate," appeared at the Abbey in West Hollywood, and has now done the LOGO interview. Obama has not reached out to us at all.

    Posted by: billyboy | Feb 4, 2008 5:59:33 PM


  8. As I noted above, Obama did an Advocate interview, too, but they said that they'd been asking him for months and he only agreed when McClurkingate exploded and limited the interview to 15 minutes which, in my opinion, was so he could run out the clock rather than have to discuss substance.

    To be fair, he did an event after the LOGO forum, too, but the press were not allowed inside. Also, "Windy City Times," recalled seeing him at some gay events in Illinois, but, outside of the state, and, more importantly since becoming a US Senator and candidate for national office I don't think he comes close to matching the record Sen. Clinton justifiably touts on her site:

    "Hillary was the first First Lady to march in a Gay Pride Parade and has marched multiple times as Senator. She has also spoken in front of LGBT audiences on numerous occasions, including delivering keynote addresses at events hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, Empire State Pride Agenda, the Hetrick Martin Institute, PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) , GMHC (Gay Men's Health Crisis), and the American Foundation for AIDS Research. Of all the presidential candidates invited to address the Human Rights Campaign's Board Meeting and Equality Convention in March 2007, only Senator Clinton accepted the invitation and addressed the HRC."

    She was the first of the final three to announce her LGBT advisory council. Obama was the last. Both she and Edwards published their LGBT related press releases on their sites months before Obama began to publish his. Etc., etc.

    And, again, this cannot be repeated too often: While Hillary has no "manifesto" so to speak, Edwards devoted a page of his 80-page plan to LGBT issues. Obama's 64-page "Blueprint for Change—Barack Obama's Plan for America" has not a single sentence, word, syllable about LGBTs. Regardless of what he SAYS anywhere else, THAT tells me EXACTLY how little a priority our rights would be in his administration.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 4, 2008 7:03:24 PM


  9. Interesting observations from Nov 15th debate:

    http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html

    Thoughtful breakdown of candidates;

    before Edwards dropped out:

    http://skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison2.html

    and opinion afterwards:

    http://skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.html

    In my OPINION, Clinton is a deceitful, pandering, flip-flopping flounder. She deals in half-truths and slanderous allusions, so whatever she posts on her website isn't worth the effort to read. I will never believe that she does anything without some type of self gain. I mean damn, even her own MARRIAGE is deceitful! I've had enough deceit to last me a lifetime, thank you very much. And maybe Obama isn't any better. But that's not what I see. I see someone with a healthy marriage and daughters who's futures remind him of much work needs to be done. I don't believe that any candidate has done all they said they would do once they got elected. So marching in gay parades and speaking at $500 a plate functions don't mean squat! Bush promised "no child left behind" and look what we got.

    Bottom line, folks should make up their own minds. I believe most people here can do that without being harassed with hollow points. This is way too important to rely on the "facts" of garrulous bullies.

    IMHO...

    OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!!

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 4, 2008 9:16:36 PM


  10. I just came back from voting in the Super Tuesday Primary and while I do believe when it comes to Hillary vs. Obama, regarding many of their positions, it's "six on one hand, half dozen on the other", I automatically voted for Hillary because I couldn't get past Obama's ties to Donnie McClurkin. For those of you who don't know who he is, McClurkin is a supposedly "ex-gay" (though reports contradict that), extremely popular, Grammy award-winning gospel singer and minister whom during the last Presidental election, campaigned for George Bush because of Bush's stand on Gay Marriage. McClurkin went on television (The 700 Club) and called for a war on the Gay community because he "was not playing with people who are trying to kill our children." While no politician can control who endorses them, they can control who they allow to campaign for them and who they allow to perform at their rallys. Obama may have been using McClurkin to get the Black Church vote but if that is the case, isn't that pandering as well? And isn't that pandering to one group at the expense of another? I have a problem with that.

    Posted by: Kevin | Feb 5, 2008 2:50:06 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Stars Line Up to Take Part in Will.i.am - Dylan Music Video for Obama« «