2012 Election | Advertising | Hillary Clinton | News

Watch: 2012 Presidential Campaign Ad Starts Airing — for Hillary


A Chicago dentist named William DeJean has spent $5,000 on ad touting Hillary clinton for President in 2012 and has aired the ad in New Orleans, with plans to air it in Washington D.C., New York, and Los Angeles, according to CNN.

Said DeJean: "I'm a dentist and I don't think this country is headed in the right direction...I think she is the most qualified."


In a brief interview with The Advocate, DeJean said gay rights did not figure into his consideration when creating the ad: "I think she would have done what she said she was going to do [on gay rights]. I don't think [Obama]'s necessarily followed through on his promises. I saw a sign at the Chicago gay pride parade that said, 'Change, my ass.' Bill Clinton recently came out gay marriage. I am certain that eventually Hillary Clinton would have come out for gay marriage."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. What a bunch of bullsh*t. If you think Clinton would be out there swinging for gay marriage as president, I want what you're smoking.

    Posted by: Wes | Sep 3, 2010 4:50:44 PM

  2. I can't think of a more helpful ad for Republicans to win the White House in 2012. Sew dissension in the ranks of the Democrats. That sound you here is a bunch of Republican strategists laughing their heads off.

    Posted by: Rod | Sep 3, 2010 5:04:41 PM

  3. I voted for her the first time and I would vote for her next time.

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Sep 3, 2010 5:06:50 PM

  4. Oh brother. The clinton ship as sailed. It's over. She should have run in '04.

    Posted by: TANK | Sep 3, 2010 5:13:50 PM

  5. It's not about what's en vogue, Tank. It's about who's best fit to run our nation. You don't like her? Fine.

    How about Al Gore?

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Sep 3, 2010 5:19:39 PM

  6. Sew dissension? Um, it's already there. I truly wish someone with a spine would run against Obama in the Dem primary. I have come to hate that man with a passion barely less rivaled by your average Tea Partier. I don't know why: He's every bit the fraud, liar and jellyfish I always knew he was. Seeing it in practice tho ... I cannot vote for him again.

    Posted by: Zlick | Sep 3, 2010 5:20:40 PM

  7. The speculation that Hillary would have done something different, or faster, on gay rights is certainly just that. She, her husband, and probably Barack will all be in the "for gay marriage after retirement" club.

    Posted by: Adam | Sep 3, 2010 5:23:45 PM

  8. I think Hillary has bigger balls than Barack can ever claim to have. I think her work as Secretary of State has shown her as a strong leader and that's what we need.

    Posted by: Brad | Sep 3, 2010 5:28:53 PM

  9. Definitely a propaganda ad that could have been made in the bowels of a pro-GOP group. It only helps them.

    Posted by: Philo | Sep 3, 2010 5:28:53 PM

  10. As they say, as they throw him under the bus.....MOOOOOOOOOOOOVE on!

    I love it!

    Posted by: Mike Triggs | Sep 3, 2010 5:28:53 PM

  11. Adam is 100% right. Meanwhile, points to Zlick for comparing himself to a teabagger before anyone else had to, and for learning their language: "barely less rivaled." But Zlick's right that there is already dissent and chaos in the Democratic Party. Still, a primary challenger probably won't help things for us or our goals.

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Sep 3, 2010 5:31:09 PM

  12. President Bill Clinton and his wife were one of the people who got us into this mess in the 1st place:

    1) Bill Clinton was the president that started DADT and his wife didn't say a word.

    2) Bill Clinton didn't support ENDA in either of his terms.

    3) Bill Clinton signed the law that forbade stem cell research.

    4) Bill Clinton led a war in the Gulf, for Christ sake.

    5) Bill Clinton and his wife failed national health care in a way that influenced the way President Obama pursued health care.

    Hilary Clinton has not come out and said forcefully "I support marriage equality, I'm against DADT, and I'm for ENDA.

    The Clintons, like most mainstream Democrats, are only for LGBT rights up to a point.

    But they are more for these rights than Republicans.

    Even more than the Clintons and the Obamas, the entire system of paid political patronage and money-takers running the nation is what is the real problem. Corporate control over politics through a variety of means (including political contributions) feeds centrism and conservatism, dampening what is perceived as risky. The Clintons and the Obamas' handlers do not want to risk catering to LGBT interests in a way that could turn off independent voters. This approach "worked" in Bill Clinton's time (he was elected twice). But the landscape is different and President Obama's handlers don't understand that if he does the same thing he may lose far more than his Democratic presidential predecessor did.

    Posted by: veg | Sep 3, 2010 5:35:05 PM

  13. VEG: You fail to remember that the Republican controlled congress went into a witch hunt in 1994 regarding gays in the military. Bill Clinton wanted to protect those serving in the armed forces to continue serving, so in working with Republicans they were able to agree on DADT. Clinton DID NOT instate that by his own regard. The same applies for DOMA.

    I hate when people blame Clinton when these policies were a direct reaction to the RNC's rabid witch hunts.

    Also, Bill Clinton did not lead a war in the Gulf, as Obama, he inherited a war that he had to finish. These are all Republican talking points, do some research. I do not know about stem cell research, but I do recall Clinton working with First Lady Nancy Reagan to further research. I mean to offense but much of what you wrote is incorrect.

    Posted by: Cory | Sep 3, 2010 5:57:39 PM

  14. She is nothing.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 3, 2010 6:08:38 PM

  15. Hillary ABSOLUTELY has condemned DADT for years, and was a cosponsor of ENDA in the Senate.

    True, her stated position on marriage equality is no better than Obama's...but she was more honest about it during the campaign than he was.

    However much she might not have been different than Obama on other issues, I'm convinced she would have kicked Pentagon ass over their resisting ending the ban [rather than caving to them as Obama did even before he took office]....both to teach the boys in brass it's not her first time at the rodeo and to atone for her husband's failure in lifting it in 1993.

    [And anyone still claiming that Bill "gave us" DADT and DOMA is simply spitting up the rewrite of history by Obama's campaign....that's really worked out great for ya, hasn't it.]

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Sep 3, 2010 6:14:03 PM

  16. Ms. Clinton hasn't said anything about 2012 has she? It's just a stupid advert.

    Posted by: Tone | Sep 3, 2010 6:19:10 PM

  17. @Cory - you either don't know how to use Google or you're intentionally rewriting recent history.

    While Wikipedia isn't right about everything, it is a good source on this issue. On DADT:

    "Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[12] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[14] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[12] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

    On the '94 Republican takeover of Congress a year later:

    "The Republican Revolution or Revolution of '94 is what the Republican Party of the United States dubbed their success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections,[1] which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. The day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, becoming a Republican.

    The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995."

    Your assessment of each Presidents' war record is equally ridiculous.

    To the larger issue, the Obama administration has been light years ahead of the Clinton administration (which was years ahead of any previous administration) on LGBT rights. I know it isn't fashionable to point that out in some small, insulated segments of the online LGBT community, but it is still true.

    Pretending that a Hillary Clinton administration would have been/will be different than an Obama administration on these issues is pure fantasy.


    Posted by: Chris Daley | Sep 3, 2010 6:27:55 PM

  18. Mr. DeJean just wasted $5000. But let the fantasies continue . . .

    Posted by: Ernie | Sep 3, 2010 6:31:59 PM

  19. Ok, the Obama V. Hillary debate is over. Rehashing the 2008 primary battle is old, tired, and bitter. The closest any of you "Hillary or nothing" people will get is possibly bumping her onto the ticket as VP in 2012.

    Posted by: kflo | Sep 3, 2010 6:32:00 PM

  20. Hey, why not?

    Shouldn't EVERY Democrat get a chance to disappoint/f*ck us?

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Sep 3, 2010 6:42:15 PM

  21. MICHAEL, Clinton may not have "given" us DOMA but he certainly hitched his wagon to it when he loudly and proudly bragged about signing it into law during his campaign for his second term.

    Don't be angry that people are attaching him to it when He himself once encouraged having his name and legacy attached to it.

    "This is Bill Clinton and I approved this message."

    Don't say it if you don't mean it.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Sep 3, 2010 6:56:03 PM

  22. The Hillary haters can never seem to move on. We fault those that hate gays and lesbians but breed hate in a all other forms.

    Posted by: Tofer david | Sep 3, 2010 7:14:48 PM

  23. I was a Hillary Hater in 2008, but I've grown to like and admire her. That said, it's insane to thinkshe would even dare to run against a sitting president within her own party, who also happens to be her boss. Ain't gonna happen. Ever. And I could never support such an insurgency within the Democratic Party. She knows it would tear the party apart. My prediction is that she will run in 2016. And I'd vote for her.

    Posted by: joe | Sep 3, 2010 7:40:08 PM

  24. That cost $5,000? Someone got ripped off.

    Posted by: Ashley | Sep 3, 2010 7:41:09 PM

  25. Never missing a chance to comment on a Hillary post - and as someone who championed her for President since 2000 - I for one DON'T think she should run.

    Let all the Obama folks - you know, the ones who were so graceful when Hillary dared to challenge their chosen one - endure 8 years of dashed hopes. Hopes plenty of pragmatic people understood a long time ago were wildly out of synch with reality.

    Posted by: AERES | Sep 3, 2010 7:48:42 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «News: Stephen Hawking, Cornell, Ryan Kwanten, Blondie« «