This week on Flaming Politics, Japhy covers headlines about Cuba's proposed gay-inclusive policies, the largest gift ever given to a gay organization, Idaho's gay marriage ban, and of course the continuing question of why HIllary Clinton has so many gay fans, including a certain pop legend whose name has been co-opted for this very site.
Click below for it all!
Submitted by
on Wed, 2008-04-02 13:17.
Stay And Fight Hillary
In what universe is Clinton going to lose California to McCain? That bizarre map you cite seems very suspect. She easily won the primary there, but somehow less than two months later Obama has a better chance of beating McCain. Not very likely. Plus, most recent polls have her 9 points ahead of Obama in Indiana.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=35417ff6-4985-47ce-8e1b-3fbe566d108d
Latest polls also have her doing better than Obama against McCain in important swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164
I just think for whatever polls you can come up with showing why she should leave, there are just as many showing why she should stay.
Hey Joey- Here's where
Hey Joey-
Here's where the data for those maps comes from : http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar28.html
My point was not to do a state-by-state breakdown, but rather show blocks of support and that more states are 'in play' with Obama as the nominee vs. Clinton. A big argument of Hillary's is that she beats Obama in swing states in primaries, but primaries aren't the important metric- how she fares in a general election is
How does that work?
Hey Japhy
I've enjoyed your video blogs. What I like most about them, with respect to the Democratic presidential candidates, is how you have exposed how much of a NON-supporter Hillary is of issues specific to the gay community. For the life of me, I don't understand why people think that Hillary is so gay-friendly. What has she REALLY done for us? And how can she not be tainted by the terrible actions her husband took against us?
Hillary C. or B.O.?
afhickman
"It takes a village (to make Village People)"
Thanks for the smoke and mirrors, Japhy. Loved your Elton, but your political presentation was clear as mud. The way to a voter's heart is definitely through the manipulation of statistics that change with the stars! I plan to vote for the Democrat in the next election, whoever she is.
Montana and other thoughts
Hillary's Problems
BTW: Japhy, you're adorable. Not what a political commentator is usually looking for in terms of feedback I know. But perhaps predictable when you don Elton drag.
I have to agree that a lot of gay support for Hillary stems from that historical empathy gay men have for embattled women. But overall I have not found Hillary (or Bill for that matter) to be willing to fight tough battles for gay rights. Indeed, Bill signed DOMA, which Hillary argues was a "compromise" to forestall a Constitutional ammendment which may or may not have actually gone through. The real truth was that embattled Bill signed it to try and deflect some of the attacks he was getting from the Far Right. Nonetheless, her position on the passage of DOMA leaves me wondering just how ready she would be to throw us to the wolves if she found herself in a position where she needed to appease the Right.
Even putting that aside though, I don't believe that even if she could win the presidency that she would be able to be a very effective president. She's much too severely hated by too many people, many of whom sit in Congress. Republicans made it a crusade to try and take down Bill at any cost, even grinding the entire government to a halt. I can easily see the GOP pitching tents on the floor of Congress and living there just to filibuster anything Hillary supports out of pure spite.
So, while I agree that Obama is still an unclear candidate on our issues, I think he's still the better bet. In addition, McCain is strong now partly because the Dems are so visibly in disarray. His lead would decline most likely in a pure challenge against Obama. Especially with the economy in decline and McCain's admitted weakness as an economist. The war is not likely to retain popularity given the Sadrists' recent demonstration that Bush's vaunted troop "surge" did not supress their ability or will to start fighting again. McCain's determination to follow Bush's lead and "stay the course" will likely become increasingly popular as it becomes more and more clear to the public that our troops are now mostly just working to keep the Iraqis from killing each other, rather than providing any measurable defense against terrorist threats to the U.S.
With the economy weakening, people are less likely to be receptive to arguments that expenditures on Iraq are an "acceptable percentage of total government expenses". When the day is done and money is tight I suspect that Americans would rather their tax dollars be spent here rather than overseas and the Dems can play that up against the GOP.
Most of my friends support Obama...
...and I'm talking gay and straight friends. And I support Obama, as well. This year, my vote is more than just a single issue vote: I want to get this country on a better road, and neither the Republicans nor Hilary appear to offer that. I honestly don't see this wide support for Hilary among gay men. Of course, the fact that I live in Chicago (Barack's hometown) could be altering my perception.
And Japhy, yes, you're adorable.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Hillary's hot in PA for some reason
Including with the gay men of Bucks County. I'm not really sure why. It does seem like a lot of people think she's a lot more pro-gay than her actions suggest mainly because she tends to show up for the NYC Pride Parade. But then, so did Rudy Guiliani.
Hillary also leads in endorsements in PA, most notably our governor and the mayor of Philadelphia. Some claim that supposedly this has to do with Hillary's family background in PA.
I don't think she's a horrible person, I just don't think she's this great liberal or gay rights activist that some people think she is. But maybe so many years of Bush's barely-concealed hatred of gays and aggressively anti-gay administration has made even a little gay-friendliness seem like a big deal.
Hilarious! And great
THIS is why the gays love Hillary...
...and why did Obama refuse to answer the questions?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_gay_rights_1
The gays must be
The gays must be as gullible as straight people if the gays "love" Hillary.
From the article you cited:
"Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would defend gay rights as president and eliminate disparities for same-sex couples in federal law, including immigration and tax policy.
"Clinton said states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts are extending rights to gay couples 'and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that.'
...
"She said that when they ask her why they can't get married, she tells them marriage is a state law."
Marriage is NOT solely a province of the states. Ask gay couples married in Massachusetts whether they can file their tax returns jointly, receive each other's social security benefits, or otherwise partake in the OVER ONE THOUSAND other federal benefits that are denied to gay couples whether marriage is a "state law." And if the federal government doesn't honor state-legal marriages, care to guess how the fed would treat separate & not equal civil unions & domestic partnerships?
The feds can't give same-sex couples the same rights without recognizing gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships. With conservatives certainly on her back throughout her entire term if she were to become prez, DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE SHE'LL PUT HER NECK ON THE LINE TO ACHIEVE "EQUALITY"? And if she needs conservative cred to get re-elected, DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE SHE WON'T PULL A BILL & DO SOMETHING DOMA-LIKE?
"Clinton said she and her husband have many gay friends that they socialize with when they get the chance. 'I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life,' she said.
"She said that when they ask her why they can't get married..."
I don't know about you, but I can't be "friends" with people who think that I don't deserve equal rights.
And if Hillary doesn't believe in extending equal rights to her "close" friends, WHAT KIND OF "FRIEND" IS SHE?
"Clinton said she opposes a measure that would ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania.
"'I would be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum and I hope it won't happen,' she said."
Why does she oppose a measure banning gay marriage? She doesn't support gay marriage! If the measure isn't about banning civil unions/domestic partnerships, so what?!
"Clinton also said she would:
• Eliminate her husband's policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' that prevents gays from serving openly in the military. Asked if she could do so by a signing order connected to a military appropriations bill, Clinton said she didn't think that is possible but she would look into it and do it if it were legal.
1. Hillary has been on the Armed Services Committee for FIVE YEARS now. If she feels so strongly against DADT, WHY HASN'T SHE DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
2. As I understand it, all Hillary would need to do as prez to eliminate DADT would be to execute an executive order abolishing DADT. Simple as that. But if she's already hedging, do you think that she'll do what it takes to end DADT?
"Clinton also said she would:
• Continue to support gay pride celebrations, to the extent that security would allow. 'I don't think the Secret Service let Bill walk in a parade when he became president,' she said."
Whoopdedo. Unless she's under sniper fire, it doesn't take much to walk in a parade. I'd take someone who'd really WORK for equal rights over someone into hollow gestures.
As far as why Obama didn't reply, we don't know the whole situation. Maybe the Philly paper was very negative in its treatment of Obama. Who knows?
I'm not defending Obama, but I don't think he'll throw us under the bus. CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY THE SAME ABOUT HILLARY?
Goldfish Memory
I swear to god, the gay community has the collective memory of a goldfish.
Can anyone tell me how much discourse our community had in the political playing field prior to the Clinton administration? Oh, that's right -- NONE!
If it weren't for the Clintons bringing our issues into the political spotlight in the '90s our place in the white house would still be limited to doing the first lady's hair, makeup, and wardrobe.
It's nice, Joey, to live in a world of ideals, but in reality - to mis-quote our own Brent Hartinger in his recent vlog - politics is compromise. And if you don't believe that, get ready to have your expectations crushed when Obama has to make his first conciliatory deal in order to get some of his other agenda items done.
As opposed to when Hillary does it
And she's very likely going to have to, and sooner than Obama, because the GOP is going to fight everything she does tooth and nail.
Just because the Clinton's were seen as great progress back in the (early) 90's does not mean that this should give them unlimited credit in perpetuity. This election is about the situation in America in 2008, not 1992.
Also, I think that it's an insult to gay activists overall to lay all, or even most, of the credit for the progress of the 90's at the feet of the Clintons.
If it's any consolation, a lot of Rockerfeller Republicans have the same problem with their party. It's been a long time since the GOP genuinely supported a reduction in the size of government or financial discipline inthe budget realm. Many have had to question party loyalty as a pro-war/nation-building and Religious Right agenda have supplanted many of the things Republicans talked about for decades.
You always have to look at the present, not the past, when making election decisions.
'Those who cannot remember the past...
Cute platitude
Again, not everyone sees it as betrayal...
...but as the normal, if odious, process of political compromise.
Here's another "platitude" that applies:
"It's all just another part of the game." - Psionycx
When all is said and done...
A first term Hillary presidency will run like the second term Bill presidency but only with more acrimony with the GOP. Again, she is hated. Not merely disliked, but despised. And I can easily see the Republicans grid-locking Congress just to oppose everything she supports.
So what does she bring to the table? What real benefit does she deliver that I should want her to be president? I'm not going to support her out of some 90's nostalgia, and I certainly don't believe that she's really going to be the new heroine of the gay community.
I have been complaining for years now that the only thing that got George W Bush elected was his family name. That any other politician with the exact same personal and career history would have never made it to the presidency.
Quite frankly I feel the same way about Hillary. I don't think that her political accomplishments have been all that awe-inspiring and I don't for an instant believe that she would have made held a Senate seat as her first elected office without the hype of coming off being First Lady.
She hasn't impressed me. I don't think that she's bad but I also don't think that she's great either. Pretty good is how I'd rate her. And given the Clinton history I don't see any reason for gays to get all gushy over her.
Hillary...
...will have to forgive me if I'm dubious.
Bill also claimed to be ultra-liberal on gay rights but quickly backed away from his stance in the face of conservative scowling. Hillary is coming on much stronger now because she's in a tight battle and Left-inclined Democrats are feeling dubious about her liberal cred.
But as with Bill, I don't have a hard time imagining her backing away from us if she finds herself butting heads with conservatives. And she will be.
I personally don't see her, Obama or McCain as great candidates from a gay community perspective, so I don't expect a pro-gay revolution after this election in any case. But my worry is that conservatives will declare war on her if she somehow wins office and one of the first things she'll due to bolster herself is pull a DOMA.
I can understand your reticence...
...I have the same wariness regarding Obama.
Coming out of a Christian background (my father is a Baptist minister, my brother is a Baptist missionary), Obama's whole "I'm a Christian, so I believe marriage is only for a man and a woman" stance has raised a battalion of red flags for me.
Eight years as a Theocracy is enough, thank you.
Since when has Hillary been
Since when has Hillary been a supporter of same-sex marriage?
And what are her reasons for not supporing same-sex marriage? Aren't they religious as well?
I don't know about you, but being married to a guy who signed DOMA into law & foisted Don't Ask, Don't Tell on gay servicemen & servicewomen raises red flags for me, especially when Hillary wants to take credit for all the good that happened during Bill's terms, but won't take any responsibility for the bad.
And don't forget, she's NOT IN FAVOR OF A FULL REPEAL OF DOMA.
IN CONTRAST, Obama IS in favor of a FULL repeal of DOMA.
So tell me again, why Hillary is better for gays than Obama?
The candidates
Right now, none of the candidates supports same-sex marriage. Period.
Therefore, making a selection based on that issue is pointless. One of these people is going to be elected even if we all boycott the booth in protest. So the real question becomes where they really stand on other levels of gay rights.
Bill Clinton put his signature on DOMA. Hillary's claims that he was trying to forestall a Constitutional ammendment aside, Bill's own explanation was that his "religious beliefs" (he's a Baptist) tell him that marriage is between a man and a woman. That his religion also forbids adultery was an irony that he opted not to go into at the time. However, since that was his explanation for signing DOMA, Hillary is contradicting the previous Clintonian line with her new explanation.
We al know Bill really did it as an attempt to placate the Religious Right (unsuccessfully it must be noted). But then, a similar position can be made about DADT, which was an example of Bill caving in to conservative pressure over his promise to lift the ban on gays in the military. They pushed back. He waffled. They went on to use DADT to carry out a witchhunt that continues to this day despite their supposed inability to "ask".
With this history in place we have to wonder how sincere Hillary really is. Does she really mean to promote our rights, or will she claim to do so and then back off when the conservatives inevitably push back?
I don't expect same-sex marriage out of any of the three of these people and besides, presidents can't just impose something like that anyway. The real questions are:
1) How much she's willing to defend what rights we've gained at the state level into the federal realm. Since DOMA is used to justify federal denial of gay rights, would she lobby for a repeal and sign it if it reached her desk?
2) Would she stand up to the Pentagon and the GOP over gays in the military?
3) If a Constitutional Ammedment effort started up again would she actively oppose it?
I agree, if none of the candidates support equal marriage...
...we shouldn't make our selections on that issue.
My point was, if he "believes what the Bible says about marriage being between a man and a woman" what other Biblical dogma is he going to pull out when it comes to other issues affecting the GLBT community.
Too many "christians" blindly follow the "infalible word of God". It's way past time to take the Church out of the Statehouse.
Religious beliefs
Dude, I am a Christian. So are a lot of liberal people I know, including gay people.
Christianity is not (despite what Karl Rove wants people to believe) a guarantee of support for conservative Republican political views. A lot of my relatives, despite being pretty devout, are supporters of same-sex marriage. There are also a lot of Christians who do have a personal conflict over the idea of same-sex marriage but who support civil unions.
This is a very new and evolving issue. Consider that the notion of same-sex marriage was completely off the radar screen just one generation ago. When compared to previous civil rights movements such as those for blacks and women, the gay rights movement has in fact made progress at almost amazing speed. Look at Canada. In less than 40 years homosexuality has gone from being a crime to same-sex marriages being legal. The U.S. isn't quite so far along, and the last sodomy laws were swept away only recently, but even here despite a much more conservative ingrained culture progress has still been considerable.
The change in thought process required is substantial and statistics show that support for same-sex marriage is much higher among people under 30 than with those above it. There are still a lot of people who, due to their socialization still haven't wrapped their minds around this issue.
Americans also insist on treating this issue in a vaccum, as if we're the only ones confronting it. Conservatives in particular tend to avoid discussing the other countries that have either same-sex marriages or some kind of legal partnerships. Or if they do speak of them they try to draw misleading comparisons between the (fairly recent) introduction of these things and the (decades-old) decline in marriage rates. Even more funny is the way they dodge this issue on DADT, especially considering that our main ally in Iraq is the UK, which allows openly gay personnel in their military, as do many other of our allies.
Now, we also have to keep in mind that all of the three candidates at the moment are professed Christians, including Hillary. Again, she doesn't beat the drum quite so much but that's at least part of the rationalization behind her opposition to marriage equality as opposed to civil unions. It's also a simple political fact of life in America that an atheist or agnostic cannot possibly hope to be elected president. Study after study has backed this up.
Obama knows this and has been playing up his faith, rather than playing it down, not least because he knows that the Democrats have for many years ceded religion to the Republicans with negative consequences among voters. I know it's silly and in many other countries it would be seen as hypocritical on the part of voters and politicians alike. But the US general public still likes the idea of politicians being religious.
It's all just another part of the game.
So it's alright to play the "appease the conservatives" game...
Not at all
But again, we don't have a serious liberal, strongly gay-friendly candidate running in this election.
It's hard therefore to use this as a metric for judging the candiates. There's no doubt that McCain is the least gay friendly. The standing question on the Dem side is whether Obama or Hillary is best for us.
As I've said, I'm dubious about Hillary because the Clinton's have always talked a good talk about gay rights, but have turned around and slapped us pretty hard in some pretty big ways when they needed to. I'm sorry but that precedent makes me question Hillary's sincerity.
Add in the fact that I think that a Clinton presidency would end up being nothing but a continual war with Congressional Republicans and GOP-controlled state governments that hate Hillary just for the sake of hating her (and her husband) and I am just not sure that the Two Family political system (Clinton/Bush) is something worth perpetuating for another 4-8 years. I think maybe it's time to clean the slate and elect somebody that's dragging less family baggage behind them.
We who are about to die
afhickman
"It takes a village (to make Village People)"
It would be political suicide for Hillary or any major candidate to come out for gay marriage. If she's going to do that, she might as well throw in the towel right now. It's beginning to look like the Democrats are going to blow another election. We're too eclectic a group to agree on anything, let alone a presidential candidate. Al Gore, where are you? All hail, President McCain!
Hands down one of the more insulting v-blogs on AE
Gee...you know us silly fags so well. We couldn't possibly like Sen. Clinton for her personality, ability, record or friendship to the community....it has to be because we just love a diva in distress. We're all about soaps that won't have guys making out shirtless and girl with 'tude on the skids.
Sen. Clinton will most likely not get the nomination...but any person that bases their argument for that on what a current poll shows is not very bright. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are not basing their arguments on polls; they are basing their electablilty against a Republican hate machine. A hate machine that hasn't even really started their engines yet...you think the Rev Wright thing was bad from them...just wait.
And to the dreamers who think it matters one way or the other where Sens. Obama and Clinton stand on DOMA...Sen. Clinton's is closer to reality than Sen. Obama's. DOMA is not going to be fully repealed. There is a chance that portions of it will be repealed but the whole thing is not...
For me the difference between the two is minimal but their style is clear. Sen. Clinton's campaign hits the streets in gay community when a vote approaches...they are on the ground. Sen. Obama buys an ad in a gay rag or mentions us in a speech. Sen. Clinton takes the time to talk directly to our community...Logo one on one, Gay press in the voting market. Sen. Obama has scheduling issues.
Hill Wins
Another View
Baby Steps