Bill Clinton and Students in Spirited Exchange on DOMA

Lily Lamboy of the Smith College newspaper The Sophian recently questioned Bill Clinton about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at an MTVu roundtable. Clinton defended his record on gay issues and accused Melissa Etheridge of “rewriting history” when she said, during the Presidential Forum on LGBT Issues, that gays were “thrown under the bus” by his administration.

(Via Visible Vote)

Comments

  1. Jim says

    As much as I loathed Melissa Ethridge in the GLBT presidential forum last summer and found her to make everything about her, I do think she has a point when taking issues with the Clintons.

    I was a strong Hilary supporter as few as 2 1/2 months ago. But honestly, the more I hear her and the more that I hear Bill speak the more turned off I am.

    I will not HOWEVER refuse to vote for her should she garner the nomination. As I do feel that she or Obama is 1000% better than McCain. This in-fighting amongst democrats is unbelievable to me. You rather have 4 more years of the same? Because if you don’t vote which a new poll out today is suggesting will happen, then we unfortunately will get what we deserve.

  2. Landis says

    That is exactly why I support the Clintons. It might be unsavoury, but it gets the job done.

  3. Dan says

    Does it really get the job done, Landis? Clinton’s campaign has been one of the biggest clusterfucks in recent memory.

  4. DC Guy says

    Clinton’s pragmatic approach may not please everyone, but he’s correct that the end result is more chance for gay folks to get married and less opportunity for bigots to get traction on a discriminatory federal constitutional amendment.

    Without DOMA, gay marriage would have been banned nation-wide in 2003 or 2004, after folks got married in MA and then went back to their home states where the wingnuts would have had absolute meltdowns. I am sure that amendment would have been enacted and ratified at record speed.

    This is just like Barney Frank’s exclusion of transgender from the revised ENDA legislation. No activists are happy about that either, but in the real world, polical progress is often made through compromises and incremenal improvement.

  5. joe says

    DOMA does much more than Mr. Clinton will admit:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

    DOMA forbids the federal government from recognizing any gay marriage, even if it is recognized in a state. Therefore, as we saw in an article last week, a gay couple legally married will be denied the ability to file join tax returns, denied the ability to enjoy any of the usual spousal benefits of married couples, and be unable to enjoy any of the other benefits provided for by the federal government.

    He made it clear how he operates. He is not interested in taking firm, groundbreaking stands. He only prefers what is “pragmatic.” Imagine if the same attitude were taken regarding race in the 60s. We would still have segregated schools in some places, but not in others. The Clinton are scumwads.

  6. OzoneDude says

    Hmmm, Bill takes her to school on how things really get done. Fun times. Next time she should interview the Reverend Wright on the pummeling Barack Obama will get from the Black evangelical community if he tries to push through gay legislation of any type.

  7. Jeff M. says

    In 2000 I moved to Washington D.C from Los Angeles to work for the Campaign for Military Service (CMS). For six months, CMS worked to assist the White House with the transistion to full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the US Armed Forces.

    I distincty remember the entire staff being completely blindsided by Pres. Clinton’s capitulation Sen Sam Nunn, et. al.

    Pres. CLinton is the one trying to re-write history.

  8. Shame says

    The wisdom of Bill Clinton.

    Voting for Obama is rolling the dice.

    Obama’s opposition to the war is a fairy tale.

    Hillary and McCain are the two candidates who love the country.

    Obama is just like Jesse Jackson.

    I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

    Mmm, tastes good.

    DOMA is actually progress.

  9. dc8stretch says

    Joe:

    I’d refer you back to wikipedia to see that there were no ‘firm, groundbreaking stands’ in the civil rights movement of the 60’s:

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964, banned discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

    It took smaller, ‘pragmatic’, dare I say Clintonian steps to get this country towards racial equality.

  10. Marc says

    “Clinton’s campaign has been one of the biggest clusterfucks in recent memory.”

    ROFL!! That’s a good one, Dan. As I see it, the Obama campaign is the biggest clusterfuck if there ever was one. There’s nothing grand or outstanding with the guy — sure he’s smart and a good orator — but he’s got everyone hooked by just a couple of words and an enormous lot of promises. I just don’t see it.

    That slimeball Bill Richardson is proof of the Obama clusterfuck — a total hypocrite who ran on experience and the importance of strong foreign policy and leadership. Obama has none of those. I’m tempted to tread into the region of loyalty and friendship, but I’ll give it a pass for now.

  11. Joe says

    Ah, so sending the Army in to make sure a school was desegregated was not a firm, groundbreaking stand for what was right???

  12. Michael Bedwell says

    For those not yet trying to breathe with their heads up Obama’s ass, per Joe, he must be a “scumwad,” too, because his position on granting federal benefits to gay couples [and, unfortunately, continuted limitations at the state level] is the same as Sen. Clinton’s.

    Joe Sweetie, if you actually KNEW ANYTHING about the long road to the 1964 and 65 Civil Rights Act you would know that there were innumerable compromises along the way that were agreed to by black civil rights leaders at the time from MLK, Jr., forward and backward.

    Dan, that Clinton clusterfuck campaign that you refer to has managed to repeatedly slow the canonization of St. Barack of Chicago. Mr. Messiah has been unable to “close the deal” despite his huge financial advantage and an endless forest of mainstream media legs in the air. Some 14 million voters so far have not deepthroated the Barackberry Kool AID despite that clusterfuck campaign. Yes, he will probably still get the nomination but one has to give credit where credit is due and, even if she loses, the greater credit goes to the person who was running against not just her announced opponents by the demonization by association with her husband, and the millions of dollars that were spent 15 years ago to crucify them both.

    Hillary = mudsplattered pants suit.
    Obama = empty suit.

  13. Brandon says

    Clinton at his disingenuous best. This is why Hillary gives me chills and I cannot support them now.

    First, I am for being practical, but the fact is DOMA DOES NOT take the issue of recognition off the table for other states. The Constitution– not congressional legislation– is the supreme law of the land. DOMA, like any federal law, can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. All you need is one state where gay’s can get “married” where that marriage is on EXACTLY the same terms as straight marriage. Once that happens, someone will go to another state and try to have their relationship recognized on the same basis as a straight couples. The courts will then have to weigh in and try to explain why straight marriage should be treated differently.

    Second, Clinton’s argument is the same argument that would have been made by those who said that African Americans should accept the legality of separate but equal because it’s better than Jim Crow or slavery. I mean, wasn’t segregation progress?

    Give me a break.

    Sometimes you fight the battle. You make the tough arguments. Sometimes you do lose, but having the dialogue is how you begin to forge a new political consensus. It is only through that dialogue that you change minds. Clinton ran from that battle in 1996.

    Third, DOMA and the ENDA aren’t exactly analogous. In the case of DOMA, gays actually lost something. A new federal law was put ON THE BOOKS which basically says that states don’t have to recognize the marriages in other states. The common legal view was that full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would require other states to recognize a legal gay marriage in another state. Constitutional issues not withstanding, you never want to be in the position of having to repeal a federal law. Conversely, ENDA is not law. Period. Gays, Lesbians, and Transpeople still lack federal antidiscrimination protection. ENDA was kind of a symbolic, let’s see who will go on record vote.

    Bottom line. Clinton deserves to be called out for this. If I were him, I’d have just said: “You’re right. DOMA sucked. Wish we could have done better.” Instead, he responds with bluster and b.s.

    So sad.

  14. Frank L says

    Oh, Bill — once such a stalwart, if flawed, politician. Now, just another parrot whose only tune is “Rewriting history! BWAAAWWWK!!!!!” Hey, if the tune works on Obama, it’ll work on some celebrity like Melissa Etheridge, right?

    Oh, and while we’re speaking of “clusterfucks” — Bill Clinton invented the term around almost exactly 10 years ago.

  15. aidanc says

    He’s asking people to believe that he signed DOMA in 1996 to stave off a republican proposal in 2004, eight years later !!! By that timetable and with those pragmatics we’ll have equality when exactly ? I think Bill is the one re-writing history.

  16. oregonstudent says

    Wow, you people are insane!

    Bill Clinton banning federal gay marriage is pragmatic and wise. But Obama saying that we need to stop using gay marriage as a wedge issue is throwing the gays under the bus.

    Only one candidate plans to fully repeal DOMA. Obama is essentially opening the way for country-wide gay marriage to become a reality in this country. In the meantime, he mentioned in Portland that this country needs federal civil unions. Hillary cannot hold a torch to Barack’s gay rights platform.

  17. Jim says

    And once again, back to the democrat in-fighting of which candidate is the bigger douche.

    Let go of your egos. Both sides have good and bad points but remove your venom. This energy is misguided and should be used to take McCain to task.

    This really gets us nowhere in trying to move forward.

  18. Frank L says

    I don’t think anyone (particularly on this blog) is not taking McCain to task. I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that McCain would be a better president (on any issue, not just LGBT issues) than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The point is, yes, the infighting is tearing the Democrats apart.

    If you think the infighting is getting us nowhere, there’s plenty of blame to go around, but Bill Clinton’s sure no shrinking violet when it comes to tearing the Democratic Party apart.

  19. Bobby says

    He just lost his wife another vote. I know voting for her isn’t voting for him, but I used to love and respect him, now I’m just not so sure.

  20. Michael Bedwell says

    Oregonmoron, just step away from the Barakberry Kook AID. Where the Jesus Fucking Christ are you getting that the Dali Obama is “essentially opening the way for country-wide gay marriage to become a reality in this country.” You are essentially but really delusional. Having orgasmed while hearing His Holiness speak, can you tell us when he offered to trade his “marriage” for our “civil unions”?

    Obama JUST LIKE SEN. CLINTON supports a state’s right to continue to do whatever they want in relation to banning [or recognizing] gay union performed in their own or other states. They’re wrong—but they’re BOTH wrong. Go to the ABC News link below if you don’t believe me—then argue with his Constitutional law professor and supporter Lawrence Tribe about what Obama actually believes!

    “Obama believes states should be under no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.”

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3468949

    The same article will explain to BRANDON that he doesn’t know the fuck what he is talking about either in relation to “full faith and credit.”

    “Obama believes a long-recognized public policy exception to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause exempts a state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state which runs counter to its own public policies.

    ‘Marriage is not something that states have ever been obliged to recognize if it’s been against their own public policy’, said Tribe, who has testified on the subject before Congress. ‘Same-sex couples …are neither better nor worse off with DOMA repealed’.”

    AIDANC: Unless you have a reverse crystal ball that can prove that the antigay industry wasn’t considering a Constitutional amendment at the time—a tactic they have tried repeatedly from banning abortion to flag burning—then all we have is your opinion. You’re free to it. Add 4 bucks and you might get a cup of coffee.

  21. Dan says

    Give me a break, Michael. One year ago, Hillary was just biding her time, patiently waiting for her coronation. And Obama? Hah! VP material, maybe. Fast-forward to the present and you’ve got the NYT saying that the only way Hillary could possibly wrest the nomination away from Obama would if a Watergate-level scandal cropped up. Hope springs eternal, right?

    And enough with the juvenile name calling. You pour all this time into elaborate (if convoluted) arguments, and then completely throw away any credibility you might have built up by using these childish taunts. Judging by your language, I’d be pretty surprised if you were actually of voting age.

  22. Fred says

    The record is the record.

    On gay rights, Clinton set us back with DOMA. Enshrining such a set of discriminatory principles in law is what counts, not post-facto rationalizations (of which Clinton is the undisputed master).

    Clinton fucked over his wife, his colleagues, his party and his country. Quit supporting these amoral, vote-whoring monsters.

  23. RLF says

    I’MSAD, to be able to have the right of civil marriage and have all the legal protections and benefits that come with it for both me and the man that I love and our kids is LIFE to me. It has nothing to do with politics. Both Obama and Hillary are WRONG!. I wonder if Obama would be so willing to look the other way if it was a racially discrimanatory policy or Hillary a gender based discrimantion. I’m not even going to try to rationalize Bill, he’s just a pathetic loser at this point. When are the American people going to GROW UP? and that goes to some people on this forum also.

  24. Brandon says

    Michael, a couple of points.

    1) From where is all this anti-Obama vitriol coming? I just don’t get it. I am all for expressing your opinion. Sometimes those expressions will be heated. I disagree with Bill about DOMA, but it is just that– a disagreement. I don’t need to rip him to shreds. The energy coming from you is just so negative and angry. I just don’t get why you feel you need to direct it Obama and the other folks who are party of the Towleroad online community.

    2) As for not knowing anything about full faith and credit, I have to disagree with you for a variety of reasons. First, the article you cite states SUPPORTS what I said. The last paragraph states: “Referring to D.O.M.A.’s relationship to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, Tribe said, ‘a state that fits professor Kmiec’s hypothetical would be a state that would not be influenced by Congress anyway because an act of Congress is subordinate to the Constitution.” If you read my post (instead of merely just making nasty comments), you will see that I said: The Constitution– not congressional legislation– is the supreme law of the land. Accordingly, my analysis AGREES with Lawrence Tribe’s.

    Second, my post says that the “common legal view” was that full faith and credit would apply to marriages.” I did not say that it was the ONLY view. If people weren’t concerned about full-faith and credit clause, why even have DOMA? The reason that you have DOMA was BECAUSE of the full-faith and credit clause. It was a preemptive strike because of those concerns. There were arguments about if and how full-faith and credit would apply.

    As I an attorney, I understand a bit more of the nuance regarding this issue which is why I used the phrase “common legal view” versus trying to explain the full contours of the clause.

    But you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s a snippet from an article from the Libertarians at the American Enterprise Institute regarding DOMA and federalism:

    “While the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is anything but clear, the historical practice concerning marriage has been relatively straightforward. As a general rule, states recognize marriages concluded in other states. In all states, however, courts have consistently recognized an exception for out-of-state marriages that violate the strong public policy of the forum state. For example, states will generally refuse to recognize a sister-state marriage where the partners chose that state for the transparent purpose of evading the laws of the state in which they are domiciled. (The point of this rule is to protect against a “race to the bottom,” meaning Nevada.) Similarly, the public policy exception has traditionally covered cases of bigamy, polygamy, consanguinity, and, in an earlier age, miscegenation.

    When the Hawaii Supreme Court legalized homosexual marriage, it seemed unclear whether the public policy exception would extend to such unions.”

    In fact, Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence (the case that declared the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional) said the following regarding the majority’s opinion:

    “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.”

    Justice Scalia (who is no intellectual slouch) was concerned about full-faith and credit. Why, because if it is not ok to discriminate against gays on a moral basis in state legislation, then you don’t even get to argue whether you could apply a “public policy” exception.

    Bottom line:

    Using profanity, you cited an article that supports what I said. You also failed to fully understand the legal nuance regarding full-faith and credit generally and put Obama’s comments in context.

    I’m not mad at you for that, but I’d hope that Towleroad can remain a community where we can disagree somewhat agreeably.

  25. Michael Bedwell says

    Oh, please, Dan. All you care about is dissing Hillary. This is your 11th Commandment: the Dali Obama can do no wrong and the Evil Clintons can do nothing right. Bill can misstate all he wants and, as much as he might like to be, his name isn’t on the ballot. Neither is a referendum on what she did or did not do 15 years ago. What was the name of the homohating gospel singer who starred in Hillary’s campaign rally again?

    You wanna debate historical revisionism? How about Obama revising the history of the gay rights bill in Illinois. Obama said he was a “chief cosponsor” of it when he was no kind of sponsor at all. He claimed he “passed” it when he wasn’t even in the state legislature anymore when it was voted on.

    Or how about the Illinois bill regulating the nuclear industry that he also claimed he passed—that one was NEVER voted on at all?

    Or how about his claiming that over 23 years, over 1000 Sundays, he never heard Jeremiah Wright say any of that crazy, racist crap; that somehow Mr. “I praise Jesus every Sunday” apparently slept in the Sunday after 9/11 so missed Wright blaming the United States for it?

    Or how about this from another Hillary Hater:

    “Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well … that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago ‘base’ in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

    You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

    Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on [his] 85-year-old [grandmother]. …

    This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been—and were—applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. But is it “inflammatory” to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it “controversial.” It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.”

    – Hillary Hater Christopher Hitchens, Slate, today.

  26. Tim Franklin says

    Golly gee Bill! I didn’t realize I should be THANKING you for codifying discrimination into federal law!! Silly me!!

  27. oregonstudent says

    The repeal of DOMA will allow lawsuits to be filed to recognize other states’ gay marriage laws in the handful of states that do not contain their own DOMA.

    This is a crucial step to allow gay marriage to reach beyond Massachusetts. Gay marriage is inevitable, but repealing DOMA now will fast track it become a reality.

    Obama does not support same-sex marriage, but no candidate does. A full repeal of DOMA, however, supports gay marriage as stated above. He mentioned the need for federal civil unions, since many rights get left out if it is just left to the states. Civil unions are important to protect the rights of devoted couples now, before the rest of society catches up.

  28. Michael Bedwell says

    Oregonia, repeal of DOMA does no such thing even in Magical Obama Land. Sen. Clinton has the exact same position on allowing all federal benefits to gay couples as Obama. And lawsuits have already been filed challenging the crux of both federal and state DOMAs in relation to “full faith and credit” and they have all failed and the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals. Except in the half dozen or so states that have do not have their own DOMA and/or state constitutional amendment all of this hot air about Section 2 of federal DOMA is legally moot.

    PROFANITY, Brandon????!!!! OMG, can you ever forgive me? More tea?

    What’s PROFANE is your resorting to homohating propaganda tanks like the AEI and the vilest, homohating fascist on the Supreme Court—an ideologue first and an intellectual second who was apparently concerned that “Lawrence v. Texas” would not just lead to the legalization of gay marriage but…wait for it…..MASTURBATION—to try to support your views.

    I think Tribe is a fool to support an empty suit like Obama, and shameless in his silly attempt to smear Sen. Clinton with something called a “symbolic insult to gays” which is right up there with “being Lanced” as the idiot coinage of 2007.

    But given that, unlike AEI and Scabrouslia, Tribe is PRO gay equality and the author of “American Constitutional Law,” the most frequently cited resource in that field, along with 11 other legal issue books, as well as a treatise on “Lawrence v. Texas” for the Law Review at Harvard where he is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor, and has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court some 36 times, I’ll accept his overall dismissal of the states-related portion of federal DOMA over their opinion, and with all respect you have due, yours.

    Finally, you misinterpret Tribes rejoinder to Kmiec while pointedly leaving out this passage: “Tribe rejects Kmiec’s warning about Obama’s approach by arguing that a court that feels compelled to recognize a same-sex marriage conducted in another state CAN DO SO EVEN WITH DOMA IN PLACE.”

    The shorthand: Obama is once again smile fucking us and Oregami and Brandon are just bending over saying, “Please, Sir, may I have another?”

  29. Bill Perdue, RainbowRED says

    Forget his support for the union busting NAFTA, his last minute pardons of millionaires, the murder of Iraqi children by his embargo on food and medicines and Monica’s cum stained blue dress. This is Slick Willie at his sleaziest.

    Bigots didn’t raise the idea of DOMA as a constitutional amendment until Bush2’s first term. Anyone who says otherwise, including Bill or Hillary Clinton or one of their shills is a liar. It’s similar to his theory that Kerry lost in 2004 because he refused to take Clintons advice and support state DOMA’s. According to NEWSWEEK Magazine “President Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act when he was in the White House, advised Kerry in a phone call early in the campaign to find a way to support the state bans.”

    In any case the events of 1996 prove that Clinton had unsavory motives for supporting and signing DOMA. He was set to lose the White House after his policies had cost the Democrats their decade’s long control of Congress. Clinton was increasingly unpopular and had to reach out to bigots for their support because of his steady support for anti-worker bills like NAFTA, for decimating cuts in welfare and health care, and for his signature on bills to deregulate corporate predators and provide an unending series of tax cuts taxes for the rich. According to TIME Magazine “By the time Clinton arrived in Chicago for his party’s convention in August, nothing that hinted at liberalism was left hanging on him. When the President, who had begun his term advocating the rights of gays in the military, came around to supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition for gay and lesbian unions, Dole was wide-eyed. “Is there anything we’re for that he won’t jump on?” Dole asked. The answer, essentially, was nothing…”

    What we do know for sure is that Clinton, in a bid to be reelected in 1996 boasted about his bigotry in signing DOMA. The AP ran a story on October 17, just three weeks before the 1996 which said “After angry complaints from gay-rights advocates, the Clinton campaign on Wednesday replaced an ad running on religious radio stations that boasted of the president’s signature on a bill banning gay marriages….The Clinton spot also touted his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, in spite of earlier White House complaints that the Republicans’ use of the issue amounted to “gay baiting.” Clinton’s ads were so bigoted and so scandalous that even his lapdogs in the HRC felt compelled to let out a yap or two.

    http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9611/23/kramer/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6415858/site/newsweek/

  30. sleepdawg says

    This vile shitbag has sold out anyone he needs to sell out to further his day. Throwing under the bus is a genteel term for what he does/did.

    And “rewriting history” is not a stone he should throw, less the words Bosnia and Rwanda come up.

    That said, I don’t associate Hillary’s work to his. Personally, I think she is capable of more than he is. So is Obama. I’ll be happy to vote for either if that is the choice. Because McCain won’t do shit for us.

  31. Michael Bedwell says

    Earth to all: Bill Clinton still not on ballot. Ya wanna play that game then:

    it was Obama who blamed the US for 9/11 and whites for trying to kill all blacks with AIDS not his former pastor and hero Jeremiah Wright.

    it was Barack Obama who said this was the first time in his entire life he’s been proud to be an American not Mrs. Barack Obama.

    it was Obama who said that gays are trying to kill the country’s children not his campaign’s gospel concert star Donnie McClurkin.

    it was Obama who said that being gay is an “evil sickness” and not his other “spiritual advisor” the Rev. James Meeks.

    it was Obama who voted against the gay rights bill in Illinois and not his pal Meeks.

    it was Obama who called Sen. Clinton a monster and not his former foreign policy guru Samantha Power.

    it was Obama who said that he has no intention of keeping his promises about withdrawals from Iraq and not Samantha
    Power.

    it was Obama who called Sen. Clinton a sleazy liar and frustrated thief of White House artifacts and not Obama gay advisor Maxim Thorne.

    it was Obama who lied when he said he passed the gay rights bill in Illinois and passed another bill regulating the nuclear industry and used dirty political tactics to prevent anyone from running against him for the Illinois senate Dem nomination and lied when he said he would serve out his first Senate term before running for President and lied when he said he is a law professor at the U of Chicago rather than just a lecturer….er, wait, all that was Obama. Sorry.

  32. jim says

    what an ass. i can’t believe that our community fell for this guy. hindsight is such a bitch. his serial rationalizations are just too much to stomach any more.

  33. BANNE says

    I won’t add much except to say AMEN BILL. I’m so sick of people pretending that the environment in the 90s is the same as it is today.

    DOMA was a response to try to keep states from proactively seeking state constitutional amendments that would forever be difficult to overturn from arising b/c of a decisions by one state to allow gay marriage. And for years it was quiet until the MA issue arose and people became afraid that courts would overturn it and states ran to the ballots to ban it. It was exactly what they were trying to stop with DOMA.

    He’s dead on and I praise him for defending what continues to be one of the friendliest administrations to gays in the history of the United States, where Obama’s supporters (so many of whom were in grade school during these years) want to rewrite history or not. AMEN BILL. AMEN.

  34. anon says

    Full faith and credit covers

    Corporations
    Contracts
    Legal Rulings
    Incarceration
    Regulation
    Tax Collection
    Marriage
    Police Investigations and Jurisdiction
    Probate and death certificates
    Joint State Ventures
    Movement of citizens
    Sovereign immunity
    Legislative immunity
    Property
    Trusts

    Shall I go on?

    Congress has the authority to regulate interstate relations. This authority was granted to prevent the formation of confederations. (Well, it almost worked).

    I’m becoming convinced that MB is Leland Francis ver2.0. Turing lives!

  35. Houndentenor says

    But we got all those state constitutional amendments anyway. What makes this so bad is not that he was pragmatic in signing DOMA but that he ran radio ads in the south BRAGGING about signing DOMA. What did the Clintons REALLY do for the gay community besides take our donations and bask in our applause? Was it better than a second Bush term or Bob Dole? Yes. But we deserve better now. Will Obama sell me out? maybe. Will Clinton? Absolutely. I’d rather cast my vote for someone who might actually stand up for me and not sell me out the moment the going gets the least bit rough.

  36. Houndentenor says

    But we got all those state constitutional amendments anyway. What makes this so bad is not that he was pragmatic in signing DOMA but that he ran radio ads in the south BRAGGING about signing DOMA. What did the Clintons REALLY do for the gay community besides take our donations and bask in our applause? Was it better than a second Bush term or Bob Dole? Yes. But we deserve better now. Will Obama sell me out? maybe. Will Clinton? Absolutely. I’d rather cast my vote for someone who might actually stand up for me and not sell me out the moment the going gets the least bit rough.

  37. Houndentenor says

    But we got all those state constitutional amendments anyway. What makes this so bad is not that he was pragmatic in signing DOMA but that he ran radio ads in the south BRAGGING about signing DOMA. What did the Clintons REALLY do for the gay community besides take our donations and bask in our applause? Was it better than a second Bush term or Bob Dole? Yes. But we deserve better now. Will Obama sell me out? maybe. Will Clinton? Absolutely. I’d rather cast my vote for someone who might actually stand up for me and not sell me out the moment the going gets the least bit rough.

  38. Zeke says

    I think it’s more than a bit ingenuous for Bill Clinton to claim that Melissa rewrote history on DOMA when it is HE, the same man who, IN HIS OWN VOICE, recorded political ads to be aired in the Bible Belt in 1996 where he BRAGGED about his support of DOMA.

    Are we now to believe that the socially conservative voters that he was attempting to impress with his DOMA support ad, were also just looking to keep a marriage amendment off the table in order to look out for the best interests of gays.

    Was that also the reason why Clinton STRONGLY encouraged John Kerry to publicly support the marriage amendment in MA in 2004 when he was running for President? Was that because of his concern for the gays and our relationships?

    Sorry, THAT DOG JUST WON’T HUNT!

  39. So Left I'm Right says

    Hey Marc, the clusterfuck is anyone who continues to bleet about Clinton or Obama being a problem when McCain is the problem…whichever Democrat survives the massive clusterfuck that is the nomination process is the one we’re going to have to vote for, and continue to advocate for our issues with one or the other, or risk another four years of right wing insanity and a Supreme Court stacked against us for at least a generation. Get over your Clinton-esque criticisms of Obama. I hate both Clintons but damn it I’m voting for her if she swindles the nomination.

  40. Paul R says

    I don’t agree that all this infighting is tearing apart the Democrats. It’s a political campaign; worse things have been said in past presidential campaigns by people who were later happy to get in bed together, politically (think McCain and Bush—I would respect McCain way more if he never forgave the smear campaign that Rove and Bush used to destroy him in 2000, and said Fuck You to his endorsement. What else was Bush going to do?).

    Bill Clinton is, for better or worse, trying to get his wife elected. Yes, probably to pay her back for the shit he put her through. But I sincerely doubt that a lot of people will say, “Oh I’m not going to vote for Obama or Clinton because they’re arguing. I’ll vote for McCain instead.” People of all political stripes are too angry with the current administration. They’ll vote for either Democratic candidate, because either way they no longer trust Republicans to serve or protect this country—fiscally, on social issues, the war, or anything else.

  41. nic says

    “Oh, and while we’re speaking of “clusterfucks” — Bill Clinton invented the term around almost exactly 10 years ago.

    Posted by: FRANK L
    ——————————————–

    really, frank? where did bill clinton “invent” it, indeed, even use it?

    as far as i can tell, the phrase was coined in the ’60s by the poet Ed Sanders and was frequently used in the military to refer to SNAFUs (situation normal, all fucked up) and/or things that are FUBAR (fucked up beyond all repair). “Charlie Foxtrot” was the euphemistic term.

    There have been others more recently who have used the term, author John Barnes in the ’90s and Jon Stewart in “America (The Book)”, are among them.

    DAN,

    you may not like the way bedwell says stuff, but it is hardly convoluted. michael is one of the few here that doesn’t merely pull stuff out of his ass. yes, i know it is harder to actually know a little about history and be able to put things like DOMA and DADT within that context. and, yes, it requires developing an attention span longer that what is required for some of you to spit out some anti-clinton talking-points or fart out some misconstrued point of fact.

    if you, brandon and others do not stop, we will all be drowning in the phlegm of ignorance and the miasma of facile disinformation that you help perpetuate. then, we can all bemoan the clusterfucks of this primary and the FUBAR situation of the democratic party.

    it is not the questioning that hurts an argument, it is the shutting down of the questions that does. don’t forget that america is in a “war” of choice for that reason. four young men died today bringing to 4000 the number of needless deaths. one of those boys — after all, many are just children –lived less than 20 miles from me. he left a wife and a nine-month old son he never got to see. had he been safe at home with his family, he could have walked down to the corner store, but he would not have been allowed to by a cerveza, if he had wanted to. he was too young. he joined the army to learn computers. that was his goal.

    BANNE,

    you’re one of the good guys.

  42. Brandon says

    Michael, I’d hoped for a different tone, but I’m not surprised by your response.

    Fortunately, logical argument is not based upon name-calling OR immediately dismissing a perspective by trying to delegitimize the source.

    Evan Wolfson formerly of Lambda Legal and one of the foremost proponents of gay marriage has argued the same point, i.e., that states would have to recognize a gay marriage under full-faith and credit.

    It’s a good tactic to try to switch the ball so that it appears I was proclaiming what the law is. I’m not that good. And, for the record, neither is Tribe. He is espousing a position about what he thinks full and faith and credit means in a very particular context. His is not the only opinion and he’s making an argument as to what the law should ultimately be. The only real and binding “decision” about what is or is not Constitutional is made by a court. (Remember, Tribe argued and lost Bush v. Gore.) My point was that people from various positions on the spectrum believed that full-faith and credit applied to gay marriage. Hence, DOMA. (Did it occur to you that Tribe’s position may be political? As a gay rights advocate, he’s going to espouse a position that would allow you to sidestep an anti-gay law. Lawyers call it advocacy.)

    You’ve also, I think, missed the mark again on another point. Tribe’s point that a court CAN ignore DOMA if it wants to recognize gay-marriage is true. Courts can “do” anything. A smart judge can argue that DOMA violates the federal constitution because, as I stated earlier, the Constitution trumps. You’re trying to create a disagreement where one doesn’t exist. Nice try, but it doesn’t wash.

    Lastly, you’re not seeing the big picture or some of the other issues.

    Saying that the federal government should not be involved in the marriage discussion (like Obama has) supports the concept of federalism– the concept that certain roles belong to states and some to the federal government. That’s not an inherently anti-gay position. It is, again, far more nuanced than that. And, this was the primary thrust of why Obama called Tribe. Remember, Tribe supports Obama.

    Additionally, Obama, according to the article that you cite, supports the repeal of DOMA while Hillary only wants to repeal part of it. Note that Hillary DOES NOT want to repeal the portion that allows states to decline to recognize gay marriages from other states.

    Can you explain why you’re attacking Obama for stating that the entire statute should be repealed? Shouldn’t Hillary be calling for the total repeal of DOMA?

    Obama isn’t trying to screw gay people on this point. He’s making a principled point about federalism. He’s also setting up a domino. Court cases are about arguments. You can argue that states didn’t have to recognize a gay marriage previously because of the potential policy exception. But, if you make that argument, you have to analogize gay marriage to stuff like polygamy. The question is would that argument wash.

    You get rid of DOMA and you take away an arrow in the quiver of the anti-gay marriage forces. Part of making an effective legal argument is depriving your enemies of ammunition.

    A federal statute saying that a state doesn’t have to recognize gay marriage is evidence of legislative intent. Courts sometimes consider the intent of the legislature and the legislative history in making legal determinations about a statute. The full faith and credit clause states:

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof

    Note the word “Congress.” One reading of the phrase is that Congress has a role in deciding how full faith and credit plays out. If you have a statute from Congress saying that you don’t have to recognize gay marriages, a court could say: Congress has spoken on the issue and there’s no full-faith and credit for gay marriages. I don’t think it likely, but it could happen.

    These types of constitutional arguments are incredibly nuanced and often are angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin type things. There’s pro & con.

    However, you never want to give ammo to your enemies in a legal battle. Why would Hillary would want to do that?

  43. Landon Bryce says

    This is pretty disgusting. It reminds me that I was so angry at him in 1996 that I voted for Ralph Nader (I did not repeat that choice in 2000.) A federal constitutional amendment was not a threat in 1996: the bigots were wise enough to save that until after the federal law was passed. It would be nice if he would just shut up because he makes his wife and himself look worse than they actually are. Her current position on DOMA (that it can be and has been used to fight a federal constitutional amendment) is reasonable and pragmatic, but it is a case of making lemonade out of lemons. And despite caving in on DOMA, Bill is not lying when he talks about appointing gay people and chipping away at the bigotry of power in Washington. In part because of the Clintons, the culture has changed so much that it is hard to remember the huge amount that his administration did to aggressively combat discrimination against gays and lesbians. How nice it would be to come away from this interview thinking about that rather than what a dick the dude can be.

    He truly would be disastrous in any diplomatic capacity as first gentleman, wouldn’t he? A bull in the nuclear China shop.

    Jesus. Fine.

    Obama 08

  44. Keith says

    What a weasel. Bill began his Presidency by screwing up his promise to end the ban on gays in the military, and ended it by signing an act to “defend” marriage even as he cheated on his wife. What did this guy do for gay people, exactly? He let some work for him, he had a few over for dinner. But in his *job* as President he totally threw us under the bus. This is the same myth that the Clintons were great for the black community. What exactly did they do? They let some work for them, had a few over for dinner. But what did they do to improve their lives.

    Answer: nothing. African-American voters have figured it out this time. They’re going to Barack in droves not because he’s black, but because he has integrity and can win. Many gays,sadly, have not figured this out yet. They attempt to re-write history to portray Bill’s as a better admin for us than it was. For some reason they still think the Clintons will do something for them.

  45. Landis says

    I just think people are so over optimistic that “acceptance” for the LGBT community is here for everyone. I don’t know about you, but United States of America, as my American friend say, is about God, guns, and money. This violates the God part of the equation.

    This is different than the civil rights movement. Everyone hates the gays. I mean, you don’t see groundswell support the gays.

    People who think that homosexuals-friendly laws are just going to be a walk in the park will be sorely disappointed.

  46. oregonstudent says

    Landis,
    It’s exciting, because this will be the first time in a long time that we will have a Democratic president AND congress. We’ve already gained ground when Congress nearly passed ENDA and the Hate Crimes bill this past year. Not having a president threatening to veto overshadowing the discussion will go a long ways, and Democrats are projected to gain a few more seats in Congress too.

    Passing gay rights laws will not be easy, but this is best forecast that we’ve had in years.

  47. nic says

    BRANDON,

    whom do you think you are kidding? you are no much more a lawyer than i am a rocket surgeon. oops … rocket scientist. yeah i think that’s right…. and, if you ARE a lawyer, i would never put you on retainer.

    there are programs that educators can use to ferret out cut-and-paste jobs (commonly known as plagiarism). that is what first caught my attention about obama’s “borrowing” from deval patrick.

    can you explain your statement, “These types of constitutional arguments are incredibly nuanced and often are angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin type things. There’s pro & con.”? no? didn’t think so.

    KEITH (and others):

    yeah, you got the goods on the clinton’s. they are amoral fornicators, whores, bitches, liars, thieves, and canibals. they will prey on pregnant women and cut the fetuses out of their wombs to sacrifice them to baal.

    meanwhile, in the non-bizzarro world, bill clinton has raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and teamed with ellen degeneres, brad pitt, the “sane” bush, bono and sting to rebuild the katrina-ravaged areas, to bring help to heal malaria and prevent its spread in africa through anti-malarial medication, to bring free or cheap HIV medication to AIDS patients. what a sleaze ball he is.

    bill and hill came to texas in the ’70s to register minorities. when bill beacame governor of arkansas, hillary worked on women’s rights and children’s rights. her work set the basis for the SCHIP program. god, what a miserable bitch she was for that.

    when bill became president, hillary worked for universal health coverage. her task was torpedoed by the repugs and the insurance industry. what a bitch! it was all her fault.

    do you guys ever listen to what you say?

  48. says

    They are many topics about gay, gay marriage everywhere. And i have seen some on the forum of http://BiMingle.com , which is welcomed by hot and open-minded bisexual, lesbian, gay and also transgender. Of course, we do support the same-sex marriage.

  49. ken says

    Obama is the one who wouldn’t take a photo with the SF Mayer who allowed gay marraige to go ahead in his city. This realy illustrates the difference between Action vs. Talk. And for his suporters to even dare to fool people into thinking that this empty-talking Obama will do anything substantive in advancing gay rights is just outrageous. The truth is gay people will not get a lot of help from any national politicians, least of all from the inexperienced novice like Obama.

  50. Brandon says

    Michael, I am not going to personally attack you. I really don’t need to do that. It’s unfortunate that you constantly feel the need to do that to me and other people. If your goal is to establish that Hillary is a better candidate (or to make any point), a different approach might work better.

    However, if you were more familiar with the law and the arguments and discussions surrounding these issues, you would know that legal arguments aren’t always black and white. They are nuanced, technical, and don’t lend themselves to sound-bite discussions or blog postings. That’s what I was saying. (One example is Lawrence. In Lawrence, the Supreme Court declared a Texas state statute regarding sodomy unconstitutional. GREAT. However, the majority used a doctrine that was dead (substantive due process) to get to the result. So while I like the result, I was a bit bothered by the path they took to get there. Why, because you want your logic to be airtight so that you’re winning cases even when are in front of judges that may have a different ideological bent. You want to win even when going in the door you don’t appear to have the votes. )

    And, as a lawyer, I rarely trust a reporter to digest a legal issue in an article– as you did– because those characterizations are almost always incomplete.

    Reporters often see the law in strictly political terms. It doesn’t work that way.

    Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsberg served on the DC Circuit. I don’t remember the exact number, but they were in agreement on at least 70% of the cases that they heard. Yet, in an earlier post, you dismissed Scalia’s arguments because he’s a conservative.

    How could Scalia and Ginsberg agree if he’s so terrible? These general characterizations of judges and the law don’t hold up when pushed. If I disagree with Scalia and he’s hearing a case, I don’t have a choice but to deal with him and make the best argument that I can.

    Hopefully, one learns lots of things in law school. One of these is to be able to approach an argument in a detached fashion because you never know for which side of an argument you’ll be forced to argue. Another is to be able to understand and appreciate an opposing point of view. It’s about having a flexible mind.

    All that’s to say, if you want to make the point that there really isn’t much of a difference between Hillary’s and Obama’s position on DOMA, I understand that perspective. I don’t agree with you completely. I don’t think that there is anything to be gained by leaving a statute on the books.

    But my issue with Bill is that I think it was possible to kill the marriage issue in another way. Like, arguing the federalism card. If you leave marriage up to the states, you don’t need federal legislation.

    And so I go back to my original point which was: I believe that it was very justified to call Bill out on DOMA. I think a better way to handle it, given that he actually signed an anti-gay law would have been just to man-up to it; say I understand why people feel that way; I just tried to do the best I could.

    Bill’s defensiveness on the matter suggests to me that he knows that it wasn’t cool.

    Anyway, to Michael (and the other posters) have a great day.

  51. ian says

    bill clinton is asking a really important question of this girl and of “ground breaking” action, as someone put it earlier. he’s asking will the harassment of homosexuals increase if federal law allows gay marriage or will it decrease?

    i’m from the first state that actually banned the recognition of gay marriage and a great number of people voted to have discrimination put into our state constitution of missouri. so, when bill clinton asks if the harassment of lgbt individuals will either increase or decrease, this is something to consider.

    if, on the federal level, we recognize all gay marriage, will this incite more hatred? and i’m not even looking at it in the current generation, because we have to examine the psychology of normalizing images to children, and if the image is that mom and dad are legally picketing faggots marrying, faggots who are going to hell anyway, how do you avoid the bullying later, which will continue because a belief process is being pressured onto people, and this is a belief system that some people view as morally corrupt.

    what was it – last week? – towleroad posted an article about the most used bullying terms in schools, and, not so surprisingly, the most used terms were either homophobic or sexist. the republican party is using the issue of gay marriage to incite hatred, and immediate action to force tolerance of something some people view completely intolerable only exacerbates this unashamed picketing and hatred. displaying a disrespect of human decency to the point of rallying at our troops’ funerals? this is the disgusting fact of the people we are dealing with as a nation, and you can either believe in forcing others to believe a certain way and have them retaliate negatively, or you can work with them and gradually change opinion.

    so, will the harassment decrease or increase if, on the federal level, we make moves for ground breaking action? or, do we allow the democratic process to work when a state shouldn’t be obligated to respect another state’s laws voted for by another state’s citizens?

    if marriage is about love, then why the need to file taxes together? if the head of our nation has vocally voiced his opposition to allow gays to marry because of a word, why do we need his or a government’s support to acknowledge love?

    once we recognize that marriage is truly about defining and providing the best chance of developing a family – and not love – and we tackle gay adoption and foster care, and then establish some kind of civil union recognized on a federal level without using the word marriage, then there is a substantial reason to have gay marriage, that partnerships would be legal and the partnerships would allow for the development of a family, and the creation of a civil union would be truly and issue of separate and unequal, because right now the counter arguments to gay marriage are too much. and we have to work with the democratic process, not against it. and the most effective way to reach our goal is not always the most ground breaking.

    and as much as i support/supported/continue to support hillary clinton, obama is absolutely right that this way of thinking is a complete distraction from the more important issues.

  52. Javier says

    The Clintons are not friends of the gay community. They will do essentially whatever it takes to win and amass power, and if it means throwing gays under the bus, they will do it. I find Hillary to be even more Machiavellian than her husband.

  53. Malcolm says

    Bill is confused. DOMA was not in reaction to MA legalizing same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was not legalized in MA until well after the Clinton administration. DOMA was in response to a Hawaii court decision that legalized marriage, but was overturned by a ballot initiative.

  54. Santiago says

    Bill Clinton not only threw gays under the bus in the 90’s, he advised Kerry to be more anti-gay marriage in the 2004 campaign. To Kerry’s credit, he did not take Bill’s wretched advice. I think Hillary is even worse. There is no way I will vote for Hillary.

  55. Jamal says

    Black people are smart enough to finally realize that the Clintons were not good for them. Will gays wake up and realize the same?

  56. dc8stretch says

    Ah, to be young- and so immaculate of history. “What has Bill Clinton done for gay people?”

    He brought us into the conversation- remember this is coming off 8 years of the Reagan white house where there was never even a mention of AIDS.

    I don’t understand why many on this blog are trying to crucify him- name another president who even acknowledged that we exist, much less undertook one of his first initiatives in office to recognize us and allow us to serve in the military.

    I fear, as does Michael Bedwell on this post, that too many of you are being soothed by the words of promise of Senator Obama instead of inspired by the flawed, compromised progress of the Clintons.

    You’re in the real world now. Real change takes blood and sweat and guts, not soaring rhetoric.

    Clinton 08

  57. Bill Perdue, RainbowRED says

    Bill Clinton was NEVER a friend of the GLBT communities. Like all politicians he was perfectly willing to make promises, issue this or that executive order and sit down for coffee with self appointed community ‘leaders‘, i.e., democrats who’d hustled for votes for him and were satisfied with the few crumbs he threw our way. Even so he never had the backbone of a Truman, who issued an order forbidding color based discrimination in the armed forces. The only things Clinton ever had the spine to fight for were cuts in welfare, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation and NAFTA.

    There is nothing bewildering or complex about the history of DOMA? DOMA was a terrible body blow to our communities, a legal lynching of our rights and standing in society by a frenzied mob of congressional bigots who voted for it by lopsided majorities of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House?

    Why would you say that Slick Willie was our friend when he immediately ran to scum like Robertson and Falwell to broadcast ads boasting that he’d signed it? Is it normal for friends pour salt on your wounds right after they stab you in the back? It is for supporters of the Democratic (sic) and they need a better class of friends.

    Now do you understand the phrase “With Democrats like this who needs Republicans”? Does that put the recent trashing of ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bills by Clinton’s campaign manager Barney Frank in perspective? That also too happened just before an election. Do you begin to see a pattern here or do you need a few more stab wounds before you wake up?

    If you all can’t figure all this out, and soon, we’re going to have to ask you to reenroll in kindergarten and start all over again.

  58. Zeke says

    IAN, was it Bill’s great concern for gay people and their relationships that drove him to push John Kerry to publicly support the anti-gay marriage amendment in Massachusetts?

    My issue with Clinton’s statement in this interview is not the practicality of his strategy but how disingenuous he is being rewriting history IN THE SAME BREATH that he claims Ethridge was rewriting history on DOMA. I happen to think that Ethridge’s history is more accurate than Bill’s otherwise Bill would NEVER have made a telephone ad to be used in the Bible Belt where he BRAGGED about his support for DOMA.

    I really wish the interviewers would have asked him about the ad AND about his advice to John Kerry. I would have LOVED to see him double talk his way out of answering those two questions honestly.

  59. nic says

    ZEKE and santiago:

    “…Clinton STRONGLY encouraged John Kerry to publicly support the marriage amendment in MA in 2004 when he was running for President(?)” ….

    i don’t want to misquote you, my friend. i have heard this statement several times, but i can’t prove it or disprove it. can you tell me when and where that happened, and who recorded it? all i can find are statements such as, “it was reported…”

    i thought better of you ZEKE. put up, or shut up.

  60. FunMe says

    I used to love Bill. I even had a photo of he and I but I no longer have it in my living room for showing.

    They did throw us under the bus.

    Bill does NOT care about gays if it gets in the way of his political career.

    sHillary does NOT care about gays if it gets in the way of his political career.

    These 2 are so 1992 with their LIES and thinking they can get away with it just because we are all Democrats.

    I DON’T THINK SO!

    And yes, Billy boy did encourage Kerry to add his support for state DOMAs to help him win.

    So anyone still thinking that Bill did not throw us under the bus must be living in a fantasy world.

  61. dw314 says

    RIGHT OFF THE BAT LET ME SAY I’M A DELEGATE FOR HRC IN THE SILVER STATE OF NEVADA.

    I DON’T LIKE OBAMA. WHEN WE HAD OUR CAUCUSES I HATED THE WAY THEY WERE SET UP. THERE WAS A LOT OF BROWBEATING OF PEOPLE, ESP OLDER PEOPLE. THE WORST THUGS WERE THE OBAMITES.

    I SAT WITH THE KUCINICH PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE WERE ONLY TWO OF THEM AND , HONESTLY, I FELT BAD FOR THEM AND I THUGHT THE LITTLE GUY HAD THE BEST IDEAS.

    THERE COMES A POINT WHEN IF YOU DO HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE YOU HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR CANDIDATE AND PICK ANOTHER. THAT’S WHEN I MADE UP MY MIND ABOUT OBAMA.

    THE OBAMA THUGS WERE ALL OVER ME BECAUSE I WAS THE LAST PERSON AND THE TIE BREAKER. THE HRC PEOPLE CALMLY TRIED TO TELL ME HER POSITIONS. THE O’S SCREAMED THAT SHE WAS A BITCH AND “EVIL”.

    WHEN I ASKED ABOUT O’S POLICIES ON GAYS ONE OF THEM SAID, “WHY WOULD YU WANT TO KNOW THAT? WHY AREN’T YOU JUST VOTING FOR THE BROTHER?” YOU SEE, I’M BLACK AND THEREFORE AM SUPPOSED TO VOTE BLACK I GUESS.

    WHEN I WENT TO HRC SOMEONE MUTTERED, “OREO”.

    NOW, THE GOOD PART. I WANTED TO BE A DELEGATE. YOU GIVE A SPEECH AND THERE’S A VOTE. I SAID BECAUSE OF MY EXPERIENCES AS A GAY , HIV POZ MAN WHO HAPPENED TO BE BLACK I MIGHT BE A PRETTY GOOD REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEM PARTY AT OUR STATE CONVENTION IN RENO. I WAS ELECTED BY EVERY HRC SUPPORTER.

    AFTERWARDS THE FOLLOWING FROM O PEOPLE. “OH, YOU’RE A FAGGOT, I GET IT”, “H, HONEY, WE’LL PRAY FOR YOU”, “SORRY YOU’RE GAY”.

    ?

    I GUARANTEE YOU SEN OBAMA CANNOT GO TO THESE PEOPLE AND TELL THEM THEY NEED TO SUPPORT ANY MEANINGFUL CHANGE IN GAY RIGHTS LEGISLATION. WHY? BECAUSE HE MUST BE “PRAGMATIC”. HIS BASE AINT HAVING IT. CALL ME AN OREO BUT I’VE BEEN TO ENOUGH BLACH CHURCHES TO KNOW THEY ARE NOT HAVING THE GAY AGENDA. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE HAVE SO MANY “DOWNLOW” BROS IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY? I HAVE ONLY BEEN TO CHURCH IN THE PAST FEW YEARS WITH DATES. WE SAT THERE IN THOSE PEWS, EVERY SINGLE TIME, AND LISTENED TO PREACHERS TALK SHIT ABOUT GAYS. AFTER THE BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES ALWAYS WENT OVER TO THE QUEEN CHOIR DIRECTOR (ALWAYS A QUEEN) AND TOLD HIM HOW BEAUTIFUL THE CHOIR SANG. THEY DIDN’T EVEN SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES. AFTER THE DATES ALWAYS INTRODUCED THEIR FRIENDS IN THE CHURCH AND MADE JOKES ABOUT THE OTHER QUEENS IN THE CHURCH AND MADE PLANS FOR COCKTAILS. MY POINT? THIS IS OBAMAS BASE, HE CAN’T ALIENATE THEM.

    ONE MORE THING, THIS WHOLE DOMA THING IS REALLY A “WHITE THING”. i KNOW THAT SOUNDS RACIST AFTER WHAT I JUST RELATED BUT I WISH WHITE GUYS WOULD REALIZE THAT EVERYTIME BEFORE AN ELECTION YOU BRING THIS STUFF UP AND GIVE THE RIGHT WING SOMETHING TO BITCH ABOUT AND TAKE THE DISCUSSION TRAIN RIGHT OFF THE TRACKS. SOMETIMES IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. WE HAVE A WAR TO WRAP UP. WE NEED MEDICAL CARE REFORM. DO YOU REALIZE THAT A BOTTLE OF HIV MEDS ARE OVER 500$! THAT MAKES NO SENSE. WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM. WE NEED OUT TAX DOLLARS PUT IN TO ENERGY RESEARCH TO CREATE A NEW INDUSTRY HERE IN THE US FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. WEE NEED TO FIX THE WALL ST MESS SO ALL THOSE MEGA MILLIONS GO BACK INTO SHAREHOLDERS POCKETS INSTEAD OF YACHT BUILDERS IN HOLLAND. STOP THE GAY MARRIAGE CRAP. IT REALLY ONLY IS OF IMPORTANCE TO A SMALL % OF THE GAY WORLD. AN AFFLUENT, WHITE, MIDDLE AGED, GHETTOIZED PERCENTAGE. WHY NOT TAKE THAT ENERGY AND MNEY YOU SPEND FIGHTING THAT AND SET UP GAY CHARITIES THAT BENEFIT CHILDREN. IN THE LONG AND “PRAGMATIC” RUN THAT WILL GET YOU CLOSER TO YOUR GOALS THAN WHINING ABOUT SOME DEM NOT DOING ENOUGH FOR GAYS.

    WITH OBAMA YOU CAN’T HAVE THAT STUFF ANYWAY. HE WON’T EVEN GO TO BLACKS WITH THAT STUFF. DON’T THINK I’M RIGHT? OTHER THAN THE OCCASIONAL SOP THROWN IN A SPEECH ABOUT HOW ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF BLAH BLAH BLAH SHOULD BE ACCEPTED HAVE YOU EVER HEARD HIM GIVE ANY IDEA OF HIS REAL POLOICIES REGARDING GAYS? NO. AND YOU WON’T. AT LEAST BILLARY TRIED. BILLCLINTON WENT RIGHT INTO THE FIRE WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY. HE GT BURNED BADLY AND THEN HAD TO ACCEPT THE STUPID POLICY WE HAVE NOW, BUT HE HAD TO BE “PRAGMATIC” IN ORDER TO GET THE REST OF HIS AGENDA PASSED WHICH LED TO GOOD TIMES FOR OUR COUNTRY.

    NO PRESIDENT CAN MAKE THINGS HAPPEN BY WAVING THE MAGIC WAND AND I’M AFRAID ALOT F O SUPPORTERS AREN’T SEEING THAT BECAUSE OF IS UNDENIABLE CHARISMA. I WANT YOU ALL TO LOOK UP THE NEWSPAPERS IN THE WEEKS BEFORE JFK DIED. HE WAS ELECTED ON CHARISMA. HIS PRESIDENCY WAS A DISASTER. MOST OF HIS POLICIES WERE IN THE SHITTER. LUCKILY, HE HAD LBJ WHO KNEW HOW TO PULL A KNIFE. HE GOT NO SIGNIFICANT CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION PASSED BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SURE HE COULD GET IT PASSED. HE WAS BEING “PRAGMATIC” BEFORE THE ELECTION BECAUSE HE KNEW IF HE WENT TOO FAR THE DIXIECRATS WOULD HAVE HIS ASS AND GOLDWATER ( A REPUBLICAN) WOULD WIN THE PRESIDENCY.

    I’M NOT SURE IF I CAN VOTE FOR OBAMA BECAUSE I TRULY DOUBT HIS SINCERITY AND THAT PAINS ME. I HAVE NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF VOTING REPUBLICAN, BUT WITH HIS “PEOPLE” CONSTANTLY WHINING ABOUT EVERY CLINTON COMMENT BEING RACIST AND HIS PASSIVE AGGRESIVE STANCE ON MAKING HILLARY DROP OUT (AND WHY SHOULD SHE? THEY ARE PRACTICALLY TIED.) I’M JUST NOT INTO HIM. I ALSO WORRY IF HE CAN’T HANDLE THIS PRIMARY FIGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR IN DENVER HOW IS HE GOING TO HANDLE THE REPUBLICAN DIRT BALL THAT WILL BE THROWN AT HIM?

  62. Ty says

    Bill and Hillary are gay friendly, but realize that in order to keep the conservative dems they must act in a way that is slightly homophobic. Tony Blair enacted civil unions in England and Clinton could have as well, but the Bubba majority in this country is out to supress our rights, that’s why we should vote in Northerners like Obama.