04/03/2008
Hillary Clinton Speaks with Philadelphia Gay News
The Philadelphia Gay News today published a wide-ranging interview with Senator Hillary Clinton which touched upon gay marriage, immigration law, tax code issues for civil unions, human rights abroad, gays in the military, and LGBT youth. Here are a few excerpts:
On immigration law for LGBT citizens: "I am going to do everything I can to eliminate any disparities in any benefits or rights under our law at the federal level so that all people will have available to them every right as an American citizen that they should, and that would include immigration law."
On signing an executive order to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": "I don’t know what the legal framework would be because you remember that, in the face of what Bill [Clinton] was trying to do in ’93, the act, by veto, proved majorities made prohibitions on doing that. So whether the president has authority to do it by executive order or not, I’m not sure. But I have been committed for more than nine years to eliminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
On foreign human rights abuses: "There are a number of gross human-rights abuses that countries engage in with whom we have relations and we have to be really vigilant and outspoken in our total repudiation of those kinds of actions and do everything we can, including using our leverage on matters such as aid, to change the behavior so we can try to prevent such atrocities from happening."
Last week, the Philadelphia Inquirer published a story on the gay "voting force" in that city, noting that gays constitute 5 percent of voters there: "'It's important for the coalition of people supporting [Obama] to be representative of America, and that proudly includes gays and lesbians,' says Tobias Wolff, 38, chair of Obama's national gay policy committee and a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The gay vote is equally significant to the Clinton campaign. 'That's why we've been doing such a proactive outreach to the community,' says Jin Chon, 30, a Clinton press secretary who focuses on gay issues. 'She knows this is a very close election. Every vote matters.'"
Read the full PGN interview here.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 6:36 PM EST by Andy in Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia | Permalink
Comments
prof. wolff is hot!
Posted by: anon | Apr 3, 2008 6:46:01 PM
Prof. Wolfe may be hot, but judging from interviews I've read, for a "law professor" he doesn't know shit from Shinola about the actual legal realities of Section 2 of DOMA [the "states rights" section]—which is that it's was always legally superfluous and, moreover, moot now entirely given that virtually every state has their own version—nor even his own candidate's continued support of a state's right to do whatever they want re same sex relationships regardless of any DOMA repeal. Obama and Clinton have the same functional position in that regard just as they do on the functionally important part that needs repealed—Section 3, to make way for the extension of the some 1100 federal rights and benefits to same gender couples.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Apr 3, 2008 6:55:57 PM
i appreciate hillary telling us what may and may not be so easily accomplished rather than a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises.
Posted by: el polacko | Apr 3, 2008 7:35:16 PM
She's straight forward, honest and is going to be one hell of a President.
Posted by: daveynyc | Apr 3, 2008 7:44:59 PM
More lies from sHillary. her husband threw us under the bus with DOMA and gays in the military.
She'll continue to do things that will help HER and the rest of us be damn, especially the gays.
The 90s are OVAH ... and so is sHillary!
Go Obama!
Posted by: FunMe | Apr 3, 2008 7:49:09 PM
I notice that Andy forgot to mention that Obama (and McCain) refused to sit for an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.
Posted by: dk | Apr 3, 2008 7:58:04 PM
This story is beginning to get a lot of national traction. To wit:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_gay_rights
Posted by: Feral | Apr 3, 2008 8:04:18 PM
Great to have her talking about gay rights, but again it is only to a gay paper. It isn't for the General population. Again, telling each constituency what they want to hear, but not referencing it to voters overall. I still can't find a reference to gay issues on her website. It is there if you have the link or URL, but she doesn't want those not part of our group to find it. Why? Maybe because it will seem less 2-faced if fewer people know about a switch later on. Why are we hiding in the closet on her website? Very distrustful (you can find it all easily on Obama's site).
Just being cautious (I will vote for her if she is the nominee, she just isn't my first choice).
Posted by: Matt R | Apr 3, 2008 8:41:50 PM
FunNot: are you one of those dizzy queens who actually think that gays were allowed INTO the military before DADT? Wrong!
But before Bill Clinton there was no executive order prohibiting discrimination against federal gay employees.
Before Bill Clinton there was not a single out federal judge.
Before Bill Clinton there was not a single out US Ambassador.
Before Bill Clinton no President's administration had dozens of out appointees such as Asst. Secty of HUD Roberta Achtenberg whom Jesse Helms called "that damned lesbian."
Before Bill Clinton there were no Supreme Court Justices as gay-friendly as Ginsberg and Breyer who voted for sodomy laws repeal and for demanding the Boy Scouts admit out gay scouts and scout leaders.
Before Bill Clinton no President took fighting AIDS seriously.
Before Bill Clinton no President had invited a group of gay activists to meet with him in the White House.
Before Bill Clinton no President ever name June national gay pride month.
He failed at many things, but succeeded at enough that he left office the HIGHEST RATED President since WWII. Higher even than Reagan.
And, PS, before Hillary Clinton no First Lady ever marched in a gay pride parade as she did in 2000. Wasn't there something about a certain other candidate refusing to be even photographed with SF's gay marriage equality activist Mayor?
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Apr 3, 2008 8:50:52 PM
given Hillary's reputation as a policy wonk.. I'm surprised that she's not sure about how she, as President, might go about getting rid of DADT. I'm also surprised she's never asked anyone what she'd need to know and do to rid the gay and lesbian community of one of the most discriminatory national policies since blacks were prevented from voting, serving in the military, and marrying outside their race. I guess for us gays.. President Hillary aint gonna be ready on day one!
Posted by: JHK | Apr 3, 2008 9:42:22 PM
Jeez, so having a list of "1sts" is enough to excuse the DISASTROUS policy of Defense of Marriage Act and the damage it caused(which helped more conservatives come into power after that was signed)?
Oh, and obviously having a "gays in the military" policy worse than it was before is no big deal since there were so many "1sts"?
Your happy with pitiful "1sts" and a politician marching in the gay parade is ... woop peed do blah.
You want to be happy with "crumbs" - go right ahead. Knock yourself out. You're obviously living in the 90s and your own alcholic dream world.
sHillary is basically concerned about HER power and that it. She's just like her husband. She is part of the STATUS QUO who time has passed. It is OVAH!
Even Bill's friend from college, the gay man David Mixner knows that.
Michaelangelina: maybe you should read what he has to say ... if you ever put your drink down.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mixner/the-clintons-the-times-t_b_43272.html
Posted by: FunMe | Apr 3, 2008 10:27:38 PM
FunNot: David Mixner has done a lot for the community but his terminal bitterness towards the Clintons borders on the pathological. Check out the history of his big lies as told by Dudley Clendinen & Adam Nagourney in the book "Out for Good." As we recall, e.g., before he finally found the balls to come out around age 30, he told people his fiancee died in a terrible car crash. There was no car crash and no fiancee, dead or alive. Then there was the one about his dying of cancer. Except he wasn't
Maybe he should own up to some of his own blame for Pres. Clinton's effort to open the military to out gays failing. As we recall Michelangelo Signorile wrote in one of his books that Mixner seemed to busy fighting with HRC over turf on the issue to be of much help to the newbie Prez.
WHERE is your evidence that more conservatives came to power because of DOMA?
And where is the evidence of any "disastrous" effects it had. It took away nothing that gays actually had before. Obama's own Constitutional law expert says it is superfluous and redundant to long standing law permitting states to do whatever they want.
And though well-intentioned SLDN has contributed to the idea that DADT is worse than the policies it superceded that simply isn't true. During WWII you could be put in a military psych ward simply for being accused of being gay. According to expert Allen Berube, author of "Coming Out Under Fire," “in the three years prior to 1966, the Navy [ALONE] discharged over 1,600 sailors each year for homosexuality.” That's some 400 MORE than the most ever discharged under DADT during one year.
Crumbs? Obama should have a loaf of bread named after him! He merely says the gay word, and ya'll ejaculate as if he'd just raised 30 million AIDS victims from the grave. And, why, pray tell, does he only call for $5 billion more to fight AIDS when Sen. Clinton has called for $20 billion more?
If DADT and DOMA were so important to him, why didn't he submit bills to repeal them in the four years he's been a US Senator. Sen. Clinton hasn't either but what's good for the goose is good for the "Messiah for the Gays."
DADT and DOMA were passed over a decade ago. It was just last October that we were thrown under the bus paid for by Obama and driven by Donnie McClurkin.
And then there's that little matter of Obama failing to cosponsor the gay rights bill version that finally passed in Illinois even tho he's told the bare faced lie that not only was he a "chief consponsor" but "passed" it when in fact he wasn't even still in the Ill senate when it was voted on. Shall we talk about his OTHER close spiritual advisor, the rabid homophobe Rev. James Meeks?
http://mfile.akamai.com/12906/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0327/8289367.200k.asx
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Apr 3, 2008 11:39:27 PM
GO HILLARY!!!!
Posted by: Dakota | Apr 3, 2008 11:52:27 PM
For those of you who are pooh-poohing Hillary's interview for the gay rag, you should note that AP has picked up the story.
If you're a Hillary-hater, be happy. Her straight-forward and honest talk about the subjects at hand may be far too much for general voters to deal with.
Posted by: Rey | Apr 4, 2008 12:00:40 AM
DaveyNYC says: "The 90s are OVAh!"
To which Hillary responded, "Which part of the 90s did you not like? The peace? Or the prosperity?"
Posted by: yrpaljoey | Apr 4, 2008 12:21:36 AM
Thank you Mike Bedwell for those facts that everyone seems to forget about Bill Clinton. He might have been imperfect in many ways, but he tried. Too many nowadays seem to forget, or never knew what it was back in those days. When it was not exactly the thing, he and Hillary supported minorities and tried to be inclusive. I find it so ironic that some of these minorities are so quick to throw them "under the bus", now that they have the power the Clintons helped foster. Everyone seems ready to drink the Kool Aid and get on the Obama bandwagon. Hey, the emperor has no clothes!
Posted by: Reggie | Apr 4, 2008 12:39:06 AM
Why do I bother looking at these revolting comments?
Posted by: homer | Apr 4, 2008 12:52:50 AM
You kinda find yourself hoping Michael's on the Clinton payroll... otherwise that's one sorry little man behind the keyboard.
Posted by: Dan | Apr 4, 2008 3:04:18 AM
Clinton talks a good game, but once she's the President, there are so many more pressing issues to deal with, and all the gay issues will be on the backburner even if her heart is in the right place. But she does score points for even speaking with a gay newspaper about some touchy issues. I think Obama will try to do an interview soon. Clinton raises the bar and he will have to follow.
Posted by: Ken | Apr 4, 2008 4:07:30 AM
Would someone please explain to me why Obama supporters are being critical of Clinton for doing an important, substantive interview on gay issues? Would we not be more supportive of him if he did the same? Is he not obviously in the wrong here? I still feel that Obama would be a much more successful president than Clinton, but it's hard to gather enthusiasm when my fellow supporters ignore the beams in his eye but shriek about the motes in hers.
It's disappointing that Andy not only left out a salient part of the story (that St. Obama declined to do a similar interview, part of the original headline) but made a feeble attempt to give the story balance by refering back to Toby W.'s comments from last week to a different publication from the same city. Because this sort of thing is so rare here, I still respect Towleroad more than other blog. I did consider deleting this comment because of my gratitude for what Andy does, but decided that commenting in this way was the better way to show my respect.
obama 08.
Posted by: Landon Bryce | Apr 4, 2008 4:16:00 AM
'Obama’s Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting a Peak Has Passed'
Todays NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04campaign.html
Mr. Obama’s lead among men has disappeared during that period. In February, 67 percent of men wanted the party to nominate him compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton. Now 47 percent back him, compared with 42 percent for her, a difference within the poll’s margin of error. Similarly, his lead has shrunk among whites, voters making more than $50,000 annually and voters under age 45.
-------------------------
He drops 20% from male voters, his biggest backers, and do you think that is not a trend?
Posted by: Oy Vey | Apr 4, 2008 7:39:03 AM
Now Michael Bedwell/Leland Francis, If that list of "firsts" where Billary allegedly tried so hard on our behalf were important to him/her why is there not a mention of any of them in their exhaustive (nee exhausting) memoirs? C'mon Leland, I used to find you entertaining and even enlightening but your pathological political masturbation of the Clintons is, at least, embarrassing--in light of your previous passionate but reasonably balanced comments--if not frightening. You will not win any converts to your side with blind loyalty. Remember, love should not make you blind. Truly knowing, respecting, and loving someone entails the responsibility to acknowledge the object-of-your-adoration's faults and failings.
Posted by: rudy | Apr 4, 2008 8:20:37 AM
I still do not get it. Re-posted from another thread:
I could never understand why gay men are supporting HRC. She appeals to (and her target demographic) is: older, white (and initially Hispanic), low income women with low levels of education who are predominantly practicing Roman Catholic. What do gay men share in common with that grouping? I find it well nigh impossible to draw that Venn diagram.
Moreover, her claim to "experience" is based almost exclusively upon her marriage to a former governor and President who was impeached (but not convicted) and subsequently disbarred from practising his legal profession. That alone should be offensive to those who have prevailed against gender or sexual orientation biases and have earned their career achievements on their own merits.
In contrast, HRC has mismanaged those activities for which she has been solely or primarily responsible: her marriage, health care reform, and the current campaign. It is all too clear from parsing her record that when a decision comes down to whether it would benefit herself or some constituent group--including her own political party--she always chooses herself over anything or anyone else. She also has trouble with truth; it appears she too took Mama Clinton's advice to Bill to heart: "The truth is whatever you want it to be." Can we endure a replay of situations such as miraculously re-appearing law firm records (with notable omissions) in HRC's private quarters or commodity futures profits based on "reading the Wall Street Journal" when the WSJ did not even cover the commodities market regularly at that time?
It mystifies me. It is not as if she is a charming or caring person (cf. Bill), that is, a natural politician. The best her supporters suggest in her defence is that she is "tough" or will never admit a mistake or defeat, unless forced to by overwhelming evidence, e.g., the blue dress, the video tape(s), and the scheduling logs.
I can understand someone voting for HRC were she to become the nominee (all but impossible at this point in the campaign without destroying the party) because the selection of replacement justices for the Supremes is of paramount importance. How can a gay man, however, select her as his first choice?
She talks the talk but she has never walked the walk for or with us. Why are gays or our issues not mentioned in either her or Bill's exhaustive memoirs? She is also such a polarizing figure (whose negatives have gone UP from the consistent baseline of 40% as she has campaigned) that even were she to be elected, she would not be able to get any legislation passed. All the Repubs and half the Dems would vote against anything she proposed or supported simply because it would be she who would be the proponent. The nation would be faced with four years of repeated health care reform style debacles and paralysis.
That alone should persuade any voter who supports her positions to vote for Obama because their agenda differ very little, yet he is more likely to be able to carry some proposals into policy and law.
Perhaps most importantly, Hillary will not be able to defeat McCain. If she is nominated, the election would be over before she began to campaign. A vote for Hillary now means a McCain victory in the autumn.
Posted by: rudy | Apr 4, 2008 8:30:30 AM
yrpaljoey:
DaveyNYC says: "The 90s are OVAh!"
To which Hillary responded, "Which part of the 90s did you not like? The peace? Or the prosperity?"
Actually that was not MY comment but i still love you
GO HILLARY!!!
Posted by: daveynyc | Apr 4, 2008 9:04:43 AM
It disgusts me so much to see other gay men buy into the notion that in order to support one Democratic candidate, you have to hate and constantly disparage the other one. (AND the other human beings supporting him or her.)
You may as well be voting for Ralph (Wiggum) Nader. Reserve your hostility for the people - and the Party - that especially deserve it.
I like both Hillary and Barack. AND I really miss the 90s.
Posted by: Rey | Apr 4, 2008 10:13:48 AM
"David Mixner has done a lot for the community but his terminal bitterness towards the Clintons borders on the pathological."
From Bedwell. At this early hour, my mind reels from the sheer force of the irony (or is it hypocrisy?) in that statement.
Posted by: 24play | Apr 4, 2008 10:35:00 AM
Well said, Landon Bryce. I was planning to comment along those lines, but you did my job for me, very articulately. Nice when reason makes its way into the endless Hillary/Obama debates.
Posted by: Ernie | Apr 4, 2008 10:59:50 AM
"PGN: How would you respond to those friends if they asked you why they can’t get married?
HC: What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn’t have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time."
What's straightforward about that answer? She is basically saying "I'm not gonna do shit about gay marriage, it ain't my responsibility." Saying that marriage is a "states' issue" is a complete cop out, because the FEDERAL government provides tax breaks and other benefits to married couples. Not even the "legal" gay marriages in MA or the civil unions in other states are allowed access to those federal marriage benefits.
Posted by: Danny | Apr 4, 2008 11:16:58 AM
Someone touched up this earlier in the comments. Very telling that it was edited from the blog posting... if the paper doing the interview was this pissed and criticized Obama I think that is important to disclose. This blog is obviously Obama tilted... ugh...
Here is the quote from the story:
Clinton's Democratic rival Barack Obama and Republican John McCain declined the newspaper's invitation for an interview. The paper criticized Obama and highlighted his refusal to talk by leaving a blank space on the front page where his interview would have appeared.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 4, 2008 11:25:24 AM
Obama declined an interview, but who knows why? Maybe it was a schedule conflict? The guy's a little busy these days.
Whatever the reason, Obama's view on same sex marriage was discussed with Chris Matthews (Hardball) just a few days ago at one of the PA universities (West Chester?). I am sure it is available on MSNBC.com or YouTube.
Posted by: NowItMatters | Apr 4, 2008 11:45:38 AM
Whatever...the fact is he didn't do the interview and the facts surrounding that pissed the paper enough for them to "leave a blank space" on the front page. That is significant and the attitude of "he made his point on Chris Matthews" is LAME. I don't know about you but I avoid watching Chris Matthews and don't consider him an outlet for gay news. The fact is HRC is speaking to gay media on a consistent basis and Obama thought it would be "safer" to just decline a "gay interview". That is shameful. You may not agree with what HRC said, but at least she had the courage to sit down and have an interview. Schedule conflicts my ass. If he had wanted to do the interview, he would have done it. He just didn't think it was worth the time having an interview with a gay paper. He made a calculation his time would be spent better elsewhere.
Posted by: Johnaway | Apr 4, 2008 12:00:45 PM
Thanks, Rey, for your last comment. You're so right, it should be possible to love one candidate without hating the other. If you can't, then you're a bad Democrat: get the fuck out of the party.
Oy Vey, darling, I don't know about the Times' polls, but there are recent polls showing the race tightening in Pennsylvania.
The Democratic Party leaders are basically saying that there will be no pressuring of superdelegates-- except to go with the will of Democratic voters at the end of the primaries.
Hillary's campaign staff had no plan for what to do if the race continued at the first week in February. They failed her. She will continue to be a fine US Senator, but she is not the choice of the Democratic Party for the presidency.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 4, 2008 12:04:32 PM
Obama once again refuses to do an interview with a gay newspaper like he did in Ohio!!!!!!
And of course there is no story on this blog of his relationship with another controversial religious nut. This one is an anti-gay bigot baptist Rev. James T. Meeks. A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals."
C'mon Andy you can do better.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 4, 2008 12:09:30 PM
OMG... to to the Philadelphia Gay News site and look at the paper, the are pissed at Obama. I'm shocked this wasn't mentioned in the blog storry. Then go and read their "Letter to a candidate" to Obama. "His disrepect of the LGBT local media is apparent her in Philadelphia...." It just goes on and on...wow, why does everyone hide all the negative things about Obama... the truth eventually surfaces guys...
Posted by: Henry | Apr 4, 2008 1:05:41 PM
RUDY said, "A vote for Hillary now means a McCain victory in the autumn."
ugh! So dramatic--and frankly a bit delusional:
Head-to-Head Polls
McCain vs. Clinton
45.0% 45.7%
McCain vs. Obama
44.2% 44.8%
When it comes to how the votes are divided, Clinton has a one point lead.
Rudy's doomsday predictions appear equally, if not more so, applicable to Obama.
--mp
Posted by: Michael Kingsford | Apr 4, 2008 1:07:48 PM
What you might have also missed is not only did Obama not sit for an interview with the paper, the paper has an ad across from the Clinton article that says, this is where we would have put our interview with Obama had he bothered to sit with us, saying he has refused to sit with local gay press in 1,500+ days.
I'll let Michael Bedwell argue all the points on DOMA/DADT as I'm tired of trying to defend Bill Clinton's role in both of those simply because some gays want to believe he threw them under the bus (even though its just not true). Also, Bill was the one who dealt with those issues, not Hillary. She's said what she wants, will do and since more than a decade has passed since those pieces of legislation have passed, public opinion has changed and in our favor. I have faith that she will do what she can to overturn both, but let's face it that states are making the decision on marriage with NO regard to DOMA. If DOMA had ANY weight at all, they wouldn't need to pass constitutional amendments. DOMA worked to prevent that until some Massachusetts lesbians decided to file a lawsuit. And now gays and lesbians in many other states will have to wait decades in hopes that there is enough support to overturn the state amendments that ban gay marriage. If DOMA mattered at all or had any weight at all, which it doesn't, none of that would have happened. DOMA is a non-issue and a tired argument for trying to throw the Clintons to the wolves in terms of gay issues. Get over it.
Posted by: BANNE | Apr 4, 2008 1:19:17 PM
No, sir/madam, I will not get over it, as it has bearing on her campaign today.
If it was as irrelevant as you feel it is, why does she a) cite it as helpful to forestalling a federal amendment and b) refuse to support a full repeal of it?
I have said before, I can indeed contextualize the history of DOMA as a bone to throw wingnuts back in the day so as not to appear "soft" on "family values." It was disappointing of Bill to cave into that pressure in 1996, but I can forgive him for it.
What I cannot countenance now is her coy triangulation on it, today, in 2008.
Further, I think it's interesting that you seem to imply, somehow, that the people who fought for marriage rights in Mass were somehow *retarding* the cause of gay marriage in this country. If I'm off-base here, I apologize. But it wouldn't be the first time I've heard that "reasoning."
I ask people who feel that how, then, did they envision gay marriage actually coming to this country. How they thought it would happen. Presumably, they would recognize that it would not happen across the country simultaneously, and it may well be decades *if ever* that certain states would ever allow gay marriage at all. States in the Bible belt, for example, are not likely to come around any time soon. The states that currently have amendments weren't exactly likely candidates to allow gay marriage *ever*. Or not anytime soon -- say, decades?
Posted by: AG | Apr 4, 2008 6:11:11 PM
Recent Comments