Election 2008 | Ellen DeGeneres | Hillary Clinton | News

Hillary Clinton Talks Up Gay Rights to Ellen

Clinton_ellen

Hillary Clinton visited the post powerful lesbian in America today and reiterated her commitment to gay rights: "We just have to make this much more fair." (Is it too much to ask for just fair?) Also on topic were healthcare, the tight Democratic race, "manhandler" Chris Matthews, and discussion of Clinton's distant genealogical relation to Angelina Jolie and Madonna, supported by comparative photos (below).

Clinton_ellen_2

Watch the appearance, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Say it with me - It's called 'pandering'.

    Posted by: Heyzeus | Apr 8, 2008 7:59:19 AM


  2. I frankly don't understand why people don't see though her completely fake personality. She such a raving, conniving, scheming cunt.

    Posted by: Joe | Apr 8, 2008 8:57:16 AM


  3. BARACK OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE!! Hillary '08!!!!!

    Posted by: daveynyc | Apr 8, 2008 9:00:13 AM


  4. Joe

    No she is NOT!

    She is human and like all of us humans she is flawed. She is also quite brilliant. At least brilliant enough to have gotten where she is while you and I have not.

    John

    As a non che quivere t-shirt wearer obama supporter
    :-)
    I look foreword to you voting with me against the continuation of the bush years via McCain Mcbush.


    Daveynyc

    Yeah, right

    obama actualy toasts 3 gays a week over an open fire with a touch of salt, dash of pepper, and a sprig of sage before gobbeling them up with fava beans and a nice chianti.

    Come on now.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 8, 2008 9:18:39 AM


  5. clinton supporters are RIDICULOUS, they love them some pandering. this is the same people who gave you DADT and DOMA. and you say, oh, it was a political move.

    so if taking your rights was a political move, then a mere mcclukin singing in an obama campaign should be NO DAMN PROBLEMS FOR YOU GUYS, unless you simply hate him because he is BLA.......

    :)

    Posted by: johnosahon | Apr 8, 2008 9:42:40 AM


  6. Zeke, You are absolutely right. Billary chooses each word and inflection carefully to preserve her deniability. Even her defenders admit that she is calculating and highly pre-scripted. They see it as a virtue; a consistent and growing 40% of Americans nationwide, however, do not.

    I still do not understand why gay men support her. What does a gay man have in common with HRC's target demographic of fervent supporters, i.e.: older, lesser educated, poorer, Roman Catholic, white (and Hispanic) women? That group tends to be highly brand-loyal and stick with a known product while ignoring any evidence of a better alternative.

    This doesn't describe the majority of gay men that I know. I can understand voting for her in the general election, if she should somehow manage to gain the nomination without destroying the party; however, how can she earn first-choice selection when she continues to talk the talk but has never walked the walk with us? We are merely a means to an end for her and our issues would be quickly sidelined--once again--in a reinstitution, nee coronation, of a Clinton II administration.

    Billary could not even bring themselves to mention our issues in their exhaustive memoirs, where they published dinner invitation lists and menus.

    As for the assertion that she is "brilliant," that is disproven by her record of failure. HRC was fired from her initial job as a Watergate investigating attorney and flunked the DC bar--a bar exam with a relatively high pass rate. HRC has failed to manage the three things for which she has been primarily responsible, her marriage, healthcare reform, and her campaign for President. Each has been a disaster exhibiting startling incompetence and lack of basic oversight. Were she to present such work history to a potential employer, she would never get the job.

    Posted by: rudy | Apr 8, 2008 9:51:23 AM


  7. At this point, I'm just fascinated at what efforts/strategy/prayers the leaders of the Democratic Party will try in order to bring us together after the primaries. How much effort will Hillary & Bill put into persuading Clinton supporters to rally behind Barack Obama. Many Hillary supporters say, "NEVER". But some political pundits say that the anti-Obama defectors can be offset by increased participation from Independents and young minority voters--people who usually aren't inspired enough to vote. But then some Hillary folks say that an Obama nomination will bring out many white racists--who may not usually vote--but who say to the idea of a black president, "NEVER". I don't know. It's going to be interesting because there is nothing the Clinton Camp can do at this point to stop Obama's nomination--the superdelegates keep joining his camp. If the anti-Barack Democrats had any "nastier dirt" on Barack they'd have used it by now.

    It's time to start thinking about how to fight the Republicans, and what may be one of the most hateful/painful presidential campaigns in American history. But hell, maybe I'm just being a drama queen...well, of course, I am.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 8, 2008 10:31:30 AM


  8. I am so not impressed. It is quite easy to talk about gay rights this and gay rights that when you are amongst the gay community. However we conveniently seem to remain invisible in the mainstream. I will give her this much though, there is quite a large straight-gay following of the Ellen show so maybe she will reach some of the straight listening audience. However, we already know all of the rights that the GLBT community doesn’t have and we don't need to hear it amongst ourselves. Who needs to hear it are all of those homophobic constituents who still approve of gay bashing and hatred and bigotry a lot of whom don't watch Ellen! She's just using a different manipulating strategy to wiggle her way into our affections so we believe she is actually helping us progress towards equality.

    The story about the gays next door made her look pious and inauthentic. So she is trying to tell us that it took her whole life up to that point for her to realize that we have been struggling with a host of inequality amongst other issues (hospital visitations just being one). Suddenly the light goes on when her father is dying (which was back in April of 93) before she realizes "oh, you guys don't have rights?"

    I wonder how long it would take for her to come to the realization that we are being discriminated against and going without over a thousand other rights? I guess we will have to sit around and wait for her to have an epiphany on all of the other rights we are being denied! It sounds like only then will she be willing to step forward and speak up on the GLBT rights in America, but only when her lights finally go on!

    Posted by: gaiboi | Apr 8, 2008 11:04:31 AM


  9. guys

    i know there's a lot of passion right now amongst democrats. but i sure hope everyone who says "if my candidate doesn't win, i'll vote for mccain" is just wrapped up in their passion right now and won't keep their word.

    we have two wonderful candidates hoping to restore our country and we're going to need each and every one of you to support our nominee.

    once this nomination is settled, let's act like the strong community we claim to be and give them our all.

    i don't remember this kind of passion within the democratic party for john kerry. we've got something special here with each of our candidates. let's not blow it.

    Posted by: Nathan | Apr 8, 2008 11:23:21 AM


  10. Well, Jimmy, I simply see voting for Obama over McCain as the most logical option (given the circumstances). Unfortunately, our fellow travellers aren't behaving very rationally.

    And my admonishment is aimed at both sides. For Hillary's boasters to even suggest that McCain would make a better president than Obama is ridiculous (since Obama's positions are a lot closer to the Clintons than Grandpa).

    Likewise, for the Obama camp to suggest that they have no need for the working-class Democratic base (as disillusioned right-wingers are going to magically morph into long-haired 'Free Tibet' hippies and move to San Francisco)...is equally absurd.

    Perhaps the Democratic Party should just disband and save themselves the indignity of losing to the "Jesus Loves War" animatronic robots (again)? This was their election to lose. And they certainly haven't dissapointed so far.

    The Democrats came into 2008 with every conceivable advantage: voter registration, money, momentum, control of Congress. The GOP was the lumbering dinosaur that was about to become extinct. But yet, they've somehow screwed things up so royally that McCain is actually leading in some polls.

    Posted by: John | Apr 8, 2008 11:24:34 AM


  11. AMOFORHILLARY, first let me say that I’m over 40 years old. I WAS there in the trenches in the darkest days of the AIDS epidemic.

    Secondly, as I said before, I am not addressing what Senator Clinton HAS said, SHOULD HAVE said or what people ASSUME she MEANT by what she said (as you just did). I only addressed what she ACTUALLY SAID in this interview with Ellen and how people, including Ellen, have reacted to it.

    She didn’t say anything about gay people being able to VISIT EACH OTHER in the hospital. She said she wanted gay people to be able to, and I quote, “have a chance to have rights to be able to GO to the hospital.” See the difference?

    She didn’t say anything about gay people being able to inherit property from EACH OTHER. She said she wanted people like us to “[have a chance to have rights to be able to] inherit property”. Big difference.

    She didn’t say anything about gay people being able to list our PARTNERS as beneficiaries. She said she wanted people like us to “[to have a chance to have rights to be able to make sure that] we can list SOMEBODY as a beneficiary on an insurance policy”. Can you not see the repeated word play here?

    This was my entire and only point in my comment above.

    Feel free to check the transcript. If I misquoted Senator Clinton in my comment above, please call me out on it but please don't take what she said and claim that she meant something else. I QUOTED her and then pointed out how her seemingly meaningful promises were in reality vacuous.

    At this point in her political career if she is unable or unwilling to SAY what she actually MEANS then I'm not going to make it my job to play interpreter for her; or for anyone else running for President for that matter.

    I certainly don’t think that Senator Clinton is an enemy of the gay community. I believe she is an ally but I don’t think the words and phrases that she used in this interview were accidental. I believe they were carefully crafted by word smiths to accomplish EXACTLY what they seem to have accomplished. They gave the impression of a commitment without actually making a commitment.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 8, 2008 11:50:22 AM


  12. Thnx for your comments Destardi. Here is how I see it now: A vote for Obama may bring on the Repubs taking back the House and Senate in 2012 and a neo con Pres. in 4 years. A vore for McCain may equal even more increases in the House and Senate for Dems and a Dem president in 2012. The main obstacle is Iraq and there is no winner. It is a lose/lose situation. It will turn ugly no matter what happens. "Staying the course" will mean that McCain gets voted out in 4 years. A withdrawal will plunge Iraq deeper into a civil war and the influx of terrorists. So we either send another Repub to clean up Bush's mess or an inexperienced Dem to be demolished by it.

    Posted by: Mike | Apr 8, 2008 3:05:32 PM


  13. to: BRANDON, thank you.

    to: TO HISTORY OF GAY BARS, i'm so sad to know that your boyfriend beat you so silly that you can't understand the difference between a person being a "goldwater republican" in the early 60s as a 15 y.o. girl and being a mlk,jr. supporter and voting-rights worker in the mid and late 60s and onto the early 70s. evolution of thought is a good thing, actually. you should try it.

    frankly, i do not understand the level of hatred toward hillary that you display. there is a large dose of dementia topped with a noisome large scoop of self-promotion there. and someone else besides you did not imply, but actually called hillary a bitch.

    a bitch? really? why is such a word so handy? how does that come about? maybe, it is a reactionary defense mechanism of frustrated straight men. but this word (and cunt, another)used against women should be stricken from the gay lexicon, or at minimum used more judiciously. this kind of shit makes me less confident of gaydom. it is obvious that we all need introspection and re-evaluation. when we look at another person to find faults, we will most certainly find them. but that should not be our goal, nor even our endeavor. why do we find it so easy to categorize?

    ZEKE, if dissecting hillary's statements were a classroom project, devoid of context, your analysis would pass. i think, though, and bearing in mind that her comments were on the "ellen show," -- a light-hearted conversational environment -- to ascribe too much to what hillary said is over-reaching. i would prefer to think that what she said was in the spirit of, "a word to the wise is sufficient." i hope that you and i and jimmyboyo are past the bruising arguments.

    to be truthful, i only commented on this thread because you did, zeke, and because i was so incensed at the lack of common human decency toward hillary. ultimately, obama will be our candidate. whether he will be our best candidate, remains to be seen. intellectually, i want hillary, but realistically obama seems to be the one. but, as many have said, you never count a clinton out.

    peace to you, zeke and jimmy.

    Posted by: nic | Apr 8, 2008 3:18:52 PM


  14. NIC

    :-)

    Always know that you were instrumental in helping me see the light on niceness and civility in dealing with this political season.

    I appologize for the B and cu@@ comments by others. Hillary is neither.

    Heck, I wrote to both campaigns and the DNC stumping for her as Obama's VP till Pelosi publicly stated that wasn't going to happen. Supreme court appointment is my new soap box, but who knows if anyone in either campaign or at the DNC will ever read my letters to tham about that.

    I am far from perfect and now and again have posted things I myself regret.

    PatrickNYC if you are reading, I am talking about my dealings with you. I doubt you would accept my hand in peace, but know that I do regret some things I have posted in regards to you.

    Anyway; I just want to go after McCain who again today made another mistake in regards to Sunnis and Shia. If he doesn't even understand some of the basic differences between the people involved then there is no hope that he ever could fix Iraq. Let alone his publicly stating he will NOT interfere with the repub platform on a constituional ban on gay marriage at the repub convention. McCainhas to be dealt with by all dems and dealt with swiftly and deftly (is that a word)

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 8, 2008 3:31:58 PM


  15. As a few others have said before me, I only hope that when the dust *finally* settles on this bitter primary race, we can put differences aside and focus on the real enemy in this election: the Republicans and John McCain.

    It's distressing to read ad nauseam the often irrational animosity leveled towards both Obama and Hillary, looking at whatever he or she does in the most negative light possible if you're on the other side. Ultimately, however, unless you truly are a oxymoronic gay Republican, the other side is our side, and if we want to win in 2008 we need to start climbing out of this useless swamp of self-destruction.

    Posted by: Ernie | Apr 8, 2008 3:48:03 PM


  16. To HYPE:

    You have to be the stupidest gay person I have ever seen leave a comment!

    Yes gay people can go to the hospital and yes they can inherit property. But in relation to their GAY relationships which is what Senator Clinton was talking about:

    1. Gay partners do not have the same hospital rights when their partner is in the hospital like straight partners.

    2. When a married husband dies, his stuff automatically goes to his living wife. If a gay person dies, EVEN if they have their partner listed in the will...it gets taxed first UNLIKE married couples. Some people cannot afford the taxes and are forced to sell the very home they lived in for 20 yrs.

    3. Insurance. Even if you have domestic partnership insurance through your company, it costs WAY more than spousal insurance because of the tax code.

    HYPE...you really need to get a clue. Obama has and wants NOTHING to do the the gay community. He wouldn't even take a picture with Gaving Newsome, the straight mayor of San Fran for marrying gays. That's why Gavin supports Hillary. Obama wouldn't even be interviewed by the Philly gay newspaper and that's why on one side of the paper was a picture of Hillary and her interview and on the other side was a picture of Obama and BLANK SPACE!

    GAYS...do your research. God, I am so irritated by uneducated gays.

    Also...do your homework on Health, Nasa, Fundraising, Illegal Caucus Behaviors, Military, Race Relations, ETC...Obama is deplorable at BEST in all of these categories.

    For Christ's sake...I can't take any more of the stupidity. I'm moving to Canada if this guy gets elected!

    Posted by: Kim F | Apr 8, 2008 4:23:54 PM


  17. Oops, I meant to ZEKE!

    Posted by: Kim F | Apr 8, 2008 4:25:18 PM



  18. NIC, when you say "i only commented on this thread because you did, zeke, and because i was so incensed at the lack of common human decency toward hillary", I'm sure you meant those two reasons to be mutually exclusive of each other. I certainly didn't, and wouldn't, show a lack of common human decency toward Hillary.

    I was also incensed by the comments calling Senator Clinton a "b" and a "c". In fact I didn't even care for the term "Billary" used by my dear friend Rudy. I started to state my disagreement with these comments but decided against it because I wanted to stay on topic and I didn't want to get drawn into the very kind of silly and nasty off topic school yard brawls that ran me away from these discussions in the first place. I decided, rightly or wrongly, to ignore them in hopes that they would starve and die.

    You will never hear me refer to Senator Clinton in a disrespectful way and you will never hear me attacking her personally or otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, I'm thrilled that the two remaining Democratic candidates are EXCEPTIONALLY qualified. Senator Clinton is my second choice but I am pleased to say that she is a very viable second choice for whom I would be happy to vote if she were to be chosen by the people to be our nominee in a way that wouldn’t tear the Democratic Party apart.

    I've long since been passed the bruising arguments. I didn't think my argument above was bruising, uncivil or even impolite. I think it's fair to point out when people are reading into a politician's words (positively or negatively) things that were clearly not said. I think it's also fair to point out that Senator Clinton, like her husband before her, is very careful with her words. With any politician it's important to pay attention to what is said and what is not said rather than allowing oneself to get excited about profound promises of major policy changes assumed to have been stated that were in actuality statements of support for already existing realities.

    I still believe that this was the case in this interview. I'm not saying that Senator Clinton invented this political rhetorical tactic; it's as old as politics itself. Nor am I saying that she is the only presidential candidate using it; Obama uses it and McCain uses it as well. My observation was limited strictly to this particular interview.

    I was asked earlier to back up my statements with direct quotes and sources. I attempted to do that with my original post. My reason for commenting was actually not about challenging Senator Clinton but about challenging people, including Ellen, who seemed to be hearing what they wanted to hear rather than what was actually said.

    People may not remember now but I gave Obama the very same treatment during the McClurkin debacle. I was challenging people to stop reading meaning into words that he didn’t say in his mea culpa. He was double talking to try to please both African-American social conservatives and gay people. I was having NONE of it.

    It's all good NIC. We're all on the same team here. I have complete respect for you. I'm still looking forward to the day that we all get down to business and gang up on Senator McCain in the general election.

    Peace.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 8, 2008 4:47:55 PM


  19. KIM F says:

    “Yes gay people can go to the hospital and yes they can inherit property. But in relation to their GAY relationships which is what Senator Clinton was talking about:”

    WHO says that what she was talking about? Show me where she said anything about gay relationships. I provided quotes, you should do the same to back up your spurious attacks on me.

    You said:

    “1. Gay partners do not have the same hospital rights when their partner is in the hospital like straight partners.

    I was in the hospital and almost died just over a year ago. My husband of 16 years and I are fully aware of the discrimination that gay couple’s face in hospital situations. You would have known this if you had been a reader of Towleroad for more than a week or two.

    2. When a married husband dies, his stuff automatically goes to his living wife. If a gay person dies, EVEN if they have their partner listed in the will...it gets taxed first UNLIKE married couples. Some people cannot afford the taxes and are forced to sell the very home they lived in for 20 yrs.

    If I had died my husband would not only have had to pay enormous estate taxes on the property I left behind but he would have also lost custody of our son FOREVER since we live in Florida where he, as a gay man, would be ineligible to adopt the son he has raised since birth and the only other parent our child has ever known. Again you would have not tried to point out the obvious to me if you had not assumed so much about me.

    3. Insurance. Even if you have domestic partnership insurance through your company, it costs WAY more than spousal insurance because of the tax code.”

    I am a work at home father. My health insurance is provided through my husband’s employer. Unlike heterosexual married couples, our health benefit is taxed costing us much more for the same benefit. But how would you know this about me. It’s so much easier to make wild assumptions about my ignorance of these issues and attributing a lot of bogus claims against me and calling me stupid and out of touch rather than reading what I actually said in my comment above.

    KIM, this is what’s known as a Straw Man argument. It’s a logical fallacy rhetorical tactic whereby a person, not having a valid argument, acts as if, or states outright, that their opponent holds views or has made a statement that he/she didn’t make and then proceeding to shoot down the bogus argument to look as if their opponent’s argument has been shot down when in fact it wasn’t his/her argument in the first place.

    You’ve done this in two ways. First of all you act as if I denied the fact of any of your three points. Not only have I not denied them, I fully agree with them. In fact I have LIVED EACH of these points in a VERY personal way. Regardless, these facts have NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with what Senator Clinton SAID in the interview and this brings me to Straw Man #2. You claim that Senator Clinton said all of these things and then call me stupid for disagreeing with her when in fact she DIDN’T say ANY of these things and my disagreement was with people claiming that she said something she didn’t. Again, I challenge you to go to the transcript of the Ellen interview and show me where she said that she wanted us to be able to visit each other in the hospital; inherit property FROM OUR PARTNERS; and make OUR PARTNERS beneficiaries on our insurance policies. Don’t tell me what you think she meant, show me what she said.

    KIM F, Though I refuse to be drawn down to your level of uncivil discourse, personal attacks and name calling, I take great offense at your ad hominem attack on me simply because I have the audacity to listen to what a politician SAYS instead of hearing what they want me to assume they meant.

    If you think a person who pays attention to what politician SAY instead of what they want us to assume they meant, makes a person stupid, clueless, uneducated and in need of doing research then I would suggest that you have an unreasonably lofty faith in politicians and the political process or at least of the ones that you support.

    Lord, I was wondering how long it would be before I regretted delving back into a political discussion on Towleroad. Other than the inappropriate words used in reference to Senator Clinton, the thread was civil and adult. Sadly it only takes one KIM F with their ranting personal attacks against other commenters to turn these discussions into nasty brawls.

    Bad idea to dip my toe back into the political pool. I’m going back into peaceful exile.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 8, 2008 5:55:51 PM


  20. Ok, first off I want to apologize to you Zeke for upsetting you. I think there was some misunderstandings on my part and maybe a few on yours. I did not personally attach you or your character, just your comments that you left behind. But again, I apologize for any harm this has caused.

    However, I would like to make note that...while Ms. Clinton did not state to perfect English language what you wanted her to say...the intent was there. And she did make these claims on the LOGO debate as well.

    Also...my comments about Obama and his supposed fear of the gay community are true. Please look them up.

    Thirdly...after experiencing a caucus in Texas so dirty, so illegal, so fraudulent, it has made me irate, and maybe against my better judgment, my comments were not logical but impassioned.

    To just get a 1% idea of that mess I went through in Texas, take a look at my videos. For further explanation, just email me. www.youtube.com/kimfrederi

    In any case, please accept my full apology, as I do not want to be one of those that turns people off from politics.

    Thanks,
    Kim

    Posted by: Kim F | Apr 8, 2008 6:21:23 PM


  21. While my preference for Sen. Clinton is well known, "on paper" as the expression goes there are only two functional differences between H & O vis-a-vis LGBT issues [and I can back that up with enough documentation to stop a train so forget hearsay].

    1. Re DOMA. Obama's support of repeal of Section 2 of DOMA is a political fraud. He, as she, unfortunately, would still support a state's right to do anything it damn well pleased. The actual difference is in his support for elimination of the federal definition of marriage as between a man and woman contained in federal DOMA. While his personal "definition" of marriage is the same as DOMA and hers, its statutory elimination would accelerate the granting of those some 1100 federal benefits to gay couples that she, as he, clearly believes in which, nevertheless, is going to be FAR more complicated than simply repealing DOMA. That is not to say that this is evidence that he has thought any more about it than she has, but it is a difference nonetheless.

    2. Her position paper on AIDS calls for "at least" $20 billion more in funding over five years. His, strangely, calls for only five.

    Trust me. That's it folks. But regardless what either asserts, promises, etc., voters are always left to a leap of faith on which they think would actually try to follow through on what they've said. By contrast, things are plainer with McCain. We know, e.g., that he absolutely WON'T do anything about DADT because he thinks it's wonderful. Etc.

    PS: Harvey Milk was once a "Goldwater Girl," too, so to speak. When do we blow up his planned memorial in SF's City Hall?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Apr 8, 2008 8:37:18 PM


  22. KIM F, Just to be clear, I wouldn't have taken such offense if you had said that you thought that my comment was the stupidist that you had ever heard. I took offense that you said that I was the stupidest PERSON that has ever left a comment. That's where it went from a disagreement with my opinion to an ad hominem attack on me as a person.

    It's all good. I appreciate your kind response. Apology accepted.

    I'm sorry that your experience in the Texas caucus was so bad. From what I've heard there were some really bad things being done on both sides in Texas and elsewhere. It's a real shame that Democrats are treating fellow Democrats in such a way, forgeting that the REAL threat to our country and the world is John McCain and the Republican Party.

    Regardless of who ends up being our nominee, I hope that we can come together as a united party to defeat McCain and ALL right wing Republicans in November.

    Thanks again KIM.

    Peace.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 8, 2008 8:48:26 PM


  23. This in-fighting, eat-your-own among Democrats is disgusting. Enough!!!!

    Don't you know the Repuglicans are laughing at your insane, childish mine-is-better-than-yours behavior!? They don't even have to lift a finger to destroy the enemy.

    Fools...

    Posted by: imladris | Apr 8, 2008 9:08:05 PM


  24. MICHAEL BEDWELL, it is always inspiriting to hear the voice of logic crying out from the darkness. my voice like yours has nothing to do with race or sex but everything to do with practicality. hillary has the stuff. but, i cannot defy a rising tide. i'm afraid that you and i are losing this fight.

    the "sturm und drang" among democrats has become a conflict over personalities. there is not a smidgen of difference between the policies of these two, yet we battle tooth and nail as if our lives depended on the outcome. THEY DO NOT. i want that the victory of one over the other not be a pyrrhic one. our lives (and those of our sons and daughters and our nieces and nephews -- straight and gay) DO depend on the outcome of the general election, however.

    we must be mindful of that!

    Zeke, you know that i would never again unjustly accuse you. my statement above contained two independent clauses joined only by a measly, innocuous coordinating conjunction. the first clause was addressed to you, insofar as you tempted me to throw in my 2 pennies. the second was aimed at the disrespectful hussies who tend to dominate the discourse. clearly, you are not one of them.

    the only point of discussion that i had with you was your over-analyzation of hillary's comments on "the ellen show." ellen was not swooning over hillary's words; she has been a hillary supporter for a while. by now, we know what hillary is about. we do not need to subject her every utterance to scrutiny. sometimes, we need to accept people at face value. i know what obama is about, and i have no compulsion to dissect his comments.

    btw, "passed" is a verb, "past" is a noun, adjective, or preposition.

    Posted by: nic | Apr 9, 2008 6:11:21 AM


  25. That anyone would accept any pronouncement from Billary "at face value" beggars belief. Zeke was absolutely correct to analyze what HRC actually said as opposed to assuming what you want her to say. [Bubba, I admire your willingness to address the trolls who periodically crawl out from their intellectual caves of darkness to post their ridiculous attacks. They obviously do not know how to think, much less that you do and express yourself logically, passionately, and eloquently.]

    We need only recall, for example, that Billary argued--under oath--that the answer to a simple direct question turned on the meaning of 'is'? Bill was impeached (but not convicted) and subsequently disbarred for lying under oath in using just such circumlocutions. It remains a continuing pattern and practice of Billary. They are, after all, both trained wordsmiths and career politicians.

    Moreover, if one believes that HRC was not intimately involved in crafting the counter-spin to the Bimbo eruptions, et al., including the false answers to interrogatories and the excruciatingly carefully scripted words and the finger wag, than your naivete is boundless. Were it not for the blue dress, Billary's deceptive words and tactics would have sent that sad little tartlet to a mental institution, in addition to lying to the courts and the country.

    The one thing that eight years of national experience with Billary (and they are indeed a team and function as such) should have taught all of us is to analyze their words exceedingly carefully. There is no such thing as an "off the cuff" comment from Billary. Indeed, the vaunted "tearing up" itself appears to have taken place on cue after vetting with focus groups. As to the specific topic of this thread, HRC was preaching to the choir and Ellen all too readily played catch and return to Billary's call.

    Ps. I would be remiss if I did not thank the commenters for your continuing lessons in grammar, despite glaring inaccuracies and idiosyncratic capitalization and punctuation. The conflation of sophomoric "Lit-Lite" style, with analysis that is a mile wide yet only an inch deep, presented in acronymic text-speak is undeniably and endlessly informative and entertaining.

    Posted by: rudy | Apr 9, 2008 8:44:29 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «It's 3am and There's a Republican Staring in the Window« «