Hillary, when asked if homosexuality immoral: "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."

[flpoljunkie]

CNN just reported on this and Donna Brazile did not defend Senator Clinton. How could she defend this spinelessness?

Clinton on The Morality of Homosexuality
14 Mar 2007 02:58 pm

Senator Clinton is asked directly what her view is on the matter by Jake Tapper. Is homosexuality immoral, he asks her. Her response:

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude. I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can."

The woman who addressed the Human Rights Campaign and will receive as much money as they can funnel to her, won't say whether she believes homosexuality is moral or not. One word: pathetic. But how predictable.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/clinton_on_the_.html

[CTD]

Wow. Just wow. Talk about spineless.

I lose more respect for her every day.

[AshevilleGuy]

15. I am just blown away by this. This is beyond the pale, even for her. n/t

[David Zephyr]

179. Pretty shity, huh?

Immoral. Beyond the pale, indeed.

[bigwillq]

1. What a cop out answer

Screw you Hil. :mad:

[Cha]

47. Would you expect anything

concrete from her?

No, it's not fucking immoral but I'll tell what is..it's that fucked up War On Iraq where Soldiers and Iraqis are being killed and maimed because of enablers like yourself, senator shillary.

[Faryn Balyncd]

219. New York Times . . . . . . . . . . . . Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3163095

[Donnachaidh]

2. weathervane tactic

Come on Hillary! Show the balls the Republicans claim you have! Take a chance! :eyes:

[EndElectoral]

3. How can she just march in Selma, and say this? Really lost respect for her

[Crabby Appleton]

4. depends of what the definition of "is" is. nt

[terrya]

5. Christ, all she is being asked is whether homosexuality is "immoral"

That is pathetic. How can she say "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can." and "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude" in the same sentence? Either you support gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military or you don't.

Way to get my vote, Senator Clinton.

[crim son]

6. I don't like her, I don't like her, I don't like her.

She's angling for votes. "...proud of the gays and lesbians..."? What the hell does that mean?

[ChiciB1]

191. I Don't Like Green Eggs & Ham, Sam I Am!!!!! n/t

[Recursion]

7. I was giving her a chance. She just lost it.

That's so sad.

[AshevilleGuy]

8. And if Gore does not come in, she is almost certain

to be installed as our nominee... Gee, I just can't WAIT to campaign for her!! :sarcasm:

This is why millions of voters dislike her and why Rudy will beat her like Mondale or McGovern.

[Cornus]

9. One more reason why she doesn't get my support NT

[Nay]

73. One more reason here, too. Jeez. This is beyond pathetic.

[ElizabethDC]

10. Sen. Clinton's spokesman

released a statement saying that HRC absolutely does not agree with Pace's statements. Also, in the ABC interview, she called for the overturning of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (as she has done previously).

Here's the story with her spokesman's comments and other info:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-usgays145129914mar14,0,3327558.story

[NYCGirl]

16. Then why can't she just say it? NT

[ElizabethDC]

27. I think b/c she assumes

that, based on her other comments during the interview, that she is supportive of gays and lesbians. Her comment sounds harsh in isolation, but I think she likely assumed that it goes without saying that she doesn't agree with Pace.

[NYCGirl]

31. Well, then, "No" would cover it. Instead, that sounds insincere at best. NT

[ElizabethDC]

38. I agree

I think her response sounds weak - but looked at in the context of her other comments during the interview, I think it's easier to discern her true intent.

[ProudDad]

20. That still doesn't answer the question

Does she believe that homosexuals are immoral?

If she does, she should NOT be president...

[AshevilleGuy]

21. That was the question she was asked,

"Do you agree that homosexuality is immoral?". Her answer is what is being written on this thread.

It came up on CNN Situation Room; Donna Brazile and the repuke guy looked absolutely stunned. Brazile said that Hilary "will HAVE to take this remark back at some point".

[Laughing Mirror]

30. She still supports DOMA too, doesn't she?

Part of her fawning "partnership" with gays she doesn't want to talk about. Why any LGBT person would want to vote for her is beyond me.

[JeffR]

51. Why anyone of any sexual orientation would want to vote for her

is beyond me.

I once thought the world of this woman and believed she would make a brilliant candidate. She's doing everything she can to prove me wrong. Yet another disgraceful performance.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

12. Oh, good god...

That's just pathetic.

WHY is she the front runner?

Howard Dean for President.

[mnhtnbb]

13. I long for Dean, too.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

76. Sigh. Dean.

I'm holding out for some combination of Gore, Dean and/or Clark.

[mzteris]

14. You guys can twist ANYTHING - can't you?

It was pretty obvious to *me* what she meant by that - and it's nowhere near what you're saying.

It's saying she would never conclude that - she'll leave that to 'others' to conclude (implying of course there's something wrong with concluding that. Don't you get that?)

Oh yeah - you also left off the parts where she said:

"In the ABC interview, Clinton reiterated her call to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell," policy of not asking gays to disclose their orientation, created by her husband in the 1990s.

"We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women," she said. "Great Britain and Israel have integrated gays and lesbians into the armed services we want to turn our backs on people who want to serve our country? "

[DemKR]

22. Gay man 4 Hillary

I think anything she does is subject to be torn down by the haters. She was the only candidate so far to speak to HRC...

Believing that homosexuality is immoral (Although I strongly disagree with it and do consider it to be a form of bigotry) is something that people are allowed to do, it's just when it's inflicted on others there is a problem.

This is atypical of a right-wing hitjob and an unfair attack on her.

Andrew Sullivan is not where I go to get my information.

[AshevilleGuy]

32. Well I am a gay man as well, and am so pissed

I can barely type this. WE are the only group left that it's okay to treat like shit!! And to have our presumed nominee make this sort of cop out - or maybe she actually believes this - just takes the fucking cake!!!

[mzteris]

43. try looking at it differently.

I read the same copy and took a completely different message away from it.

[AshevilleGuy]

81. It was a direct question. She avoided answering it.

It is similar to, "Are you a racist?". Answer: "I will leave that for others..." What would you read into that?

This is a way to stand up for one of the Democratic Party's largest constitutuencies?

She has a HUGE problem with us now, I would think.

[mzteris]

94. oh yeah -

she's sooooooooooo awful! I mean, everyone's gonna vote for Guiliani, now.

[AshevilleGuy]

100. Perhaps you are not gay, so you don't understand

what it means for her to NOT say we are not immoral. I know exactly what it means!

[mzteris]

115. rofl........

[AshevilleGuy]

129. And my reply was amusing because.... n/t

[mzteris]

152. strawman argument,

we'll just leave it at that.

So are you originally from Asheville?

[Le Taz Hot]

221. Can I just assert

that one does not have to be gay to see her response for what it is. "No" would have been the proper response. No spin needed.

[bettyellen]

182. what kind of glasses you wearing that make such a spinless souless cop out sound okay?

gotta get me a pair.

[mzteris]

209. don't think they'll help ya

there are none so blind as those who will not see, b.e.

[David Zephyr]

177. Me, too.

If she can't say whether or not we are "moral" or "immoral" then who the fuck needs her?

[mzteris]

41. the haters - - - ayuh.

There's plenty of them on DU. I still can't figure out WHY to tell you the truth. I'm not "for" Hillary - I not "against" Hillary. I'm neither for nor against any of the DEM candidates.

Each has attributes I like and each has things I dislike.

[flpoljunkie]

162. Then read what Kos has to say on this...

Hillary on homosexuality
(From ABC's Jake Tapper's blog)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/03/senator_clinton.html

I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is "immoral." Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law -- signed by her husband in 1993 -- was a mistake, and if homosexuality is "immoral."

"General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is not working," she said. "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war -- when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army -- we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are."

But is it immoral?

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."


KOS:

She can tell those gays and lesbians she knows and is proud of that she is too afraid to say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, they are not "immoral".

Here's how Warner put it:

The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace's view that homosexual acts are immoral.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held."

It's not that hard to say the right thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/14/17176/7130

[soleft]

23. You can't twist the fact that she did not simply say "No"

Anything short of that is far short of the integrity we need in our candidate.

[mzteris]

52. She didn't have to - she said it in a way

that pretty much said Pace and anyone who agrees with him is an idiot. Entitled to their opinion, of course - but still an idiot.

How can people not see that?

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[countingbluecars]

25. I expect a direct answer like

Of course it's not immoral!

[AshevilleGuy]

48. Yeah, as simple as that. I am just astounded.

This is going to haunt her for a looooooooong time. What a gaffe!

[mzteris]

55. Of course up is up and

down is down.

right. Of course. How could I have been so blind not see she didn't answer the question? doh.

[ProudDad]

26. It's pretty obvious

she's ducking the question so she won't piss off the small minority of fundie 'christians' who believe that shit but might still vote their own best interests over their superstitions. (for a Dem for Prez).

[mzteris]

60. oh puhleeze -

do you really think Hillary Clinton gives a rats ass about trying to influence some 'fundie christian' to vote for her? Hell would freeze over first.

[ProudDad]

204. By viewing her actions

and words so far, yeah, I absolutely think she's programmed to troll for every possible vote she can get by making sure that no one can pin anything on her (other than being the dreaded "C" word -- Clinton )...

:shrug:

I can say in her favor, on balance, in total, She's not quite as bad as any repuke...

[Dr Fate]

29. I know Hillary did not mean it that way- but she should have said "No- I don't think it is immoral"

I'll give her TOTAL benefit of the doubt on this one-Better luck next time, Hill.

I wont treat Hill like she treated Kerry- I know she doesnt hate gays even though she seemed to agree with Rove that Kerry "hates the troops."

Tough when the media spins your words, Eh Hill?

;)

[xchrom]

63. and you hit the nail right on the head.

she triangulated her position -- do you think blacks are inferior to whites -- well i'll leave that others to conclude -- but i do know i have blacks who work in my office and they are hard working, patriotic blacks --

so on and so forth.

i see down thread -- i may have misunderstood you -- never mind.

[loyalsister]

181. perfect analogy

There is room for an interpretation of that comment that smacks of bigotry.
Whether that was the intent of her comment or not, that is the result.
She should have known better.
Reinforcing stereotypes and bigotry is a bigotry in and of itself.

It will break my heart if she is our candidate in the general.
I am committed to voting Dem.

[ProudDad]

205. Maybe that's it

When I hear it, "Triangulation" sounds like mealy-mouthed posturing to me. It sounds like not taking a stand, position or expressing an definite opinion on anything of importance.

Obviously, my bad...

[Nay]

84. Exactly. Why the hell can't she say "No, it is not:" and get on with

it?? Why does she have to sound WEASELLY all the time??

[NDP]

118. Probably because it's a ridiculous question. They may as well ask Democratic candidates if they

believe in aliens, or better yet, do they believe in heaven and hell. It's a loaded question.

[AshevilleGuy]

125. How about you, NDP, do you think

homosexuality is immoral?

[NDP]

136. I actually think that as far as Presidential campaigns go, this issue is a waste of time. Your

opinion of homosexuality, or mine, is actually something that means about as much to me as feces. Do I think that everyone should be treated fairly. Yes, but beyond that, nothing else matters.

[CTLawGuy]

171. but it's not a loaded question

Q: Is the sky blue?
A: Yes.

[NDP]

212. It is a loaded question, because they know that it's a political loser for the Democrats

If they answer the way you want them to, they lose with a lot of voters. If they don't answer the way that you like, they never hear the end of it from the activists. The media uses gay marriage to drive a wedge between Democrats.

[Blue_In_AK]

35. The correct answer to the question

should have been an unequivocal "NO." It doesn't require any "leaving it to others to conclude." She muddies the waters by making such a statement.

[David Zephyr]

195. Nothing to twist. She made herself clear.

You are doing the twisting to undo what she said.

I'm happy she said it. Now we all know.

[ProudDad]

17. WHAT????

[Laughing Mirror]

19. We've made our conclusion, Hillary

I can't believe Human Rights Campaign would give that opportunistic hawk one thin dime.

I'm glad she's showing her true colors, though. She'd had LGBTs fooled for the longest time.

[paulk]

67. these true colors?

"I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is "immoral." Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law -- signed by her husband in 1993 -- was a mistake, and if homosexuality is "immoral."

"General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is not working," she said. "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war -- when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army -- we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are.""

from the part of the interview Sullivan left out.

ps - and your referring to HRC as an "opportunistic hawk" ... does that show your true colors? Do you expect anyone to believe this statement changed your mind in any way?

[Blue_In_AK]

24. What a stupid response.

Hillary continues to disappoint.

[Babel_17]

28. That answer will not hold up ..... period.

My advice: Senator Clinton, you will take a hit on this, that's inevitable, but you can still minimize the harm this does to gay rights, your party, and yourself.

You should spin this remark as being a mis-statement. What you "meant to say" is that you didn't see this as a topic worthy of being argued about and you wouldn't dignify the premise by responding to it.

Do it fast, minutes count.

[Dr Fate]

33. This is not unlike the Kerry "hates the troops" gaffe. We all know what Hillary did that time.

For Hillary's sake, I hope DEMS are more charitable towards her than she was towards Kerry.

[AshevilleGuy]

37. This was a straightforward question, not an attempt at a joke.

Her answer is unambiguous. What is to spin?

[Dr Fate]

45. It is unfortunate that she phrased it that way- but I thought she meant...

...that "others" are the ones who make moral judgements against gays, not her.

Even still,I cant blame anti-Hillary people too much if they want to treat this the same way she treated the Kerry gaffe- that is, she went with the Rove's media spin as opposed to what was really being conveyed.

[Babel_17]

65. Me too.

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude." can be take as the kind of snarky criticism of the underlying argument that an extremely well educated lawyer would make in a courtroom. You know, dripping disdain but spoken in the manner you have to use in front of a judge.

I respect Hillary though she's not my top pick, one thing is for certain and that is that she's a prominent democrat and I don't won't her statements being twisted into fuel for the GOP propaganda/mass distraction mill.

It was (hopefully) a slip up, a "crime of omission", and I hope she just comes out and gives the quick correction that is all it would take to settle this.

[karynnj]

109. There is NO similarity to Kerry here

Because:

1) Kerry misspoke and the RW pinned a meaning on him that he never said:
- Kerry misread a joke - and the text was available before hand
- Kerry's literal comment could be interrepted that if you do poorly in school, you end up in Iraq.

The right wing immediately - said that Kerry said that the troops were undereducated or dumb. That does not logically follow.

Every politician has occasionally misread something - usually they simply explain what was suppose to be said and that's that. The standard was always different for Kerry who was NEVER given a break on anything. (Remember when Bush said that our enemies were always working to destroy us, and so were we. - was he asked to defend what he lierally said?)

Kerry's commitment to the troops and veterans has been exceptional since 1969 when he returned to the US. As he has said many times, he was one of the troops. He has always spoken of them with respect and often affection. He sees them as people - and they seem to know that.

@) Hillary might not have misspoken - but was hit with a landmine of a question
Here - Hillary said what she thinks - that she can not define morality on this for everyone. It may be that she is acknowledging that some people find homosexuality immoral and that she is unwilling to say that it is either "moral" or "immoral". For someone of her generation, this is not an unusual position - this is an issue where people's positions have shifted greatly over the last 50 years.

The problem for Hillary may be that she will be forced to take a stand one way or the other and she doesn't want to. (Oddly the wishy washy answer will annoy stict religious people who think morality is not subjective and people on the left because she is unwilling to say that people have no choice on their sexuality.)

I assume that most politicians will not take a stand on Hillary's statement. She may try to soften the comment - though she may feel she did when she spoke of equal rights in terms of jobs. This is a tricky question - as it could hurt in the primaries, but help in the general election.

[Dr Fate]

145. No-its' very similar. Both statements can easily be spun into something it is not. n/t

n/t

[flpoljunkie]

34. As AshevilleGuy pointed out, Brazile: Hillary "will have to take this remark back at some point."

[mloutre]

36. BOK, bok bok bok bok... n/t

[Vinca]

39. This really bothers me.

Is she so damn scripted she can't speak from the heart and call BS for what it is? I do not like her.

[ElizabethDC]

40. Her response does sound bad in isolation

but when you read the rest of her comments regarding homosexuality in that interview (which are posted elsewhere in this thread), it's much easier to discern her true stance (which is that homosexuals ought to be allowed to serve in teh armed forces, etc.). This is yet another example of many DUers taking something at face value and running with it.

[DemKR]

50. Exactly

In all honesty, I do not care what everyone's personal morals are. As much as I may disagree with them, we all have the right to have them. It's what the candidate's PLAN is that matters!!

Hillary does not believe homosexuality is immoral.

[JeffR]

59. Rather than anyone having to "discern" her true stance

why can't she simply come out with it? Why is that so difficult for the Senator?

[Nay]

91. But the question wasn't whether gays should serve in the military

or not, or whether she had gay friends or not. It was whether she personally thought homosexuality was immoral. And she didn't/couldn't/wouldn't answer the simple question with a simple answer!!

[karynnj]

130. I disagree

I think that many Duers realize that she is saying that gays should be able to serve in the military, have equal rights to jobs and housing and she is for Civil Unions.

This is different - this is asking whether homosexual acts are immoral. For someone of Hillary's generation (and mine), people's opinions on this question have undergone enormous change. Her answer is unsatisfying to both sides. As a Democrat, the interpretation that it is ok for people to define it as immoral will be very troubling for some people. Remember the question Senator Kerry was asked on whether you are born gay or not. Hillary is not willing to say as he did that God made them as they are. (if God made them that way, then to say that their acting on that God given sexuality is immoral would be troublesome.

[ElizabethDC]

146. I agree that she did not answer the question well

though her spokesman did later say that she absolutely disagrees with Gen. Pace's statements. I just think she may have thought that that went without saying, given her positions on gay rights. That's the way I understood it but, as a person of a younger generation, perhaps I just automatically make that assumption?

[ProudDad]

208. Ah, Yes

"I think that many Duers realize that she is saying that gays should be able to serve in the military, have equal rights to jobs and housing and she is for Civil Unions."

That's what Gen. Pace said. And then they go to Hell for their sins... :evilgrin:

[SaveElmer]

42. Yeah that was a poor answer...but

I don't believe she meant to imply she thought homosexuality was immoral, that others conclude it is...

I'm sure we will see some clarification on this soon enough!

[Dr Fate]

57. In total fairness, I thought that was what she meant too.

The real question is whether some anti-Hillary people are going to treat this the same way she treated the Kerry gaffe- that is- to go with the negative spin as opposed to what was really being conveyed.

For Hillary's sake, she should hope that these folks dont believe in that goose/gander stuff!

[MGKrebs]

169. That won't matter.

Since she didn't give the satisfactory answer the first time, she will be percieved as just pandering if she gives it later. Other candidates get to clarify/apologize/refine. Not this one.

[NDP]

44. Sounds like a good answer to me. She's running for President, not head of the seminary

What does the President of the United States have to do with gay marriage? Go talk to your state legislature about it.

[DemKR]

54. As long as she appoints judges to overturn the marriage laws, I couldn't care less nt

[NDP]

75. Marriage is primarily a states issue. I could care less if they appoint judges who don't want to

hear anything about it, and send it back down to the states. Then the people who support gay marriage should work the grassroots, or just wait "10 years" when the voting electorate changes and then get it on the ballot. Otherwise, proponents are just wasting people's time screaming about it.

Changing something like marriage requires bottom up, not top down.

[DemKR]

89. I respectfully disagree on this issue

I don't see marriage equality happening federally soon, but I do think equal rights must be enforced on a federal level. In any event, thank you for standing up to the anti-Hillary crowd.

[karynnj]

133. Overturn what marriage laws?

Do you mean MA or DOMA

[AshevilleGuy]

56. Not refuting Pace is a good answer??

She could not say that homosexualty is NOT immoral. What is good about that?

[NDP]

82. Because whether or not she says it does nothing. What? Do you just want her to agree with you?

I don't like Hillary, but she isn't going to say any more than she needs to say. That's a question that all Democratic candidates should ignore. Marriage is not a Presidential campaign issue. It's a local government issue. The media keep asking "Democrats" about gay marriage, because they know that talking about it does not have a net benefit for them. The Democrats should ask them why they are asking them about it, instead of asking candidates for local government about it.

[Colobo]

87. Edwards said he didn't think homosexuality is not inmoral

That means a presidental candidate is standing with the gay community in the middle of the Pace attack. That's something I applaud.

[NDP]

112. Something that he didn't need to say either.

What does asking Democratic candidates about whether they believe homosexuality is "immoral" have to do with running for President? Whether it's "immoral" or not, doesn't mean that hate crimes are okay. Should we burn "witches" at the stake? Plenty of people don't agree with "witchcraft." The media ask Democrats these questions for a reason, and it's not a good reason either.

Good on Hillary for not playing along. Edwards shouldn't have either. If you want to phase out Fox Noise for their crap, then see through the rest of the media when they are trying to play you for a sucker.

[loyalsister]

183. The media are supposed to ask hard questions

Isn't that what we have been complaining about?
It is ridiculous for us to whine when they do it to our side. This is what responsible journalists do.
People need to grow up and not expect our candidates to be babied just because other hard questions and issues are not covered as thoroughly as they should be.

[AshevilleGuy]

97. This is not about gay marriage. This is about gay and lesbian people

and whether or not they are "immoral". I am one of them and I sure as hell want to know if she thinks me immoral!!!

I would expect some shithead like Brownback to say this, but Hilary???? What do you mean, all Democratic candidates should ignore this question?

[NDP]

128. Actually, it's not about whether "they" are immoral, it's about whether what they "do" is immoral

And yes, there is a difference, and yes, I know that they are "alluding" to gay people. The question was about homosexuality, not homosexuals. "Homosexuality" doesn't vote. Homosexuals do. Now, if they would have asked her, "do you think homosexuals should be arrested for homosexuality," I'm sure she would have given an answer. They won't ask that one, because not even most people who disagree with homosexuality think that they should be arrested, but many of them think it's "immoral." Asking whether homosexuality is immoral is media bait.

[AshevilleGuy]

134. It ain't "they" to me, it's WE. n/t

[NDP]

140. Well, insert "we" in everything that I just said. It's a "local" issue, not a Presidential issue

Until you realize that, you are going to just keep running around in circles. Put pressure on your "Governor" if you want something done.

[AshevilleGuy]

201. Ahh... a LOCAL issue!!

Just like segregation was a local issue to many. Abortion as well, perhaps some states should be able to jail abortion providers. After all it's LOCAL...

We have a right to know what the person we MIGHT elect to the most powerful office in the world really thinks about one tenth of her citizens as a group. The other Dem candidates have not or will not find it a difficult question to answer. Why must she?

[NDP]

213. Marriage is a local issue, and a waste of time as a Presidential campaign issue

I see that you like dragging down Democratic candidates with an issue that you should be lobbying your state legislature about. Why? Just because you can? So, they agree with your position, what difference does it make. You'll just end up with a Republican President if the Democrat is as vocal about it as you are. If they don't, what difference does it make. It's not something that they would be dealing with as President unless some court case reaches the SCOTUS and they suggest that the US Congress make a law and then the Congress passes some bill for the President to sign or veto. Otherwise it's just a "symbolic" victory for you if they "agree with" you, because it has no actual effect whatsoever.

[crispini]

46. K&R so others will see this

What a weasel.

[melody]

49. She needs a vertebrae transplant stat

What a cowardly thing to say.

[youngdem]

53. What an empty shell of a politician...

Tell me, Hillary supporters, what substance is there to her that makes her compelling? She seems like a person full of ambition to be president but there is no compelling reason to put her there. What policy is she championing? What is her idea to bring the war to a swift end?

She is Repuke lite, and frankly, given the slate of Repukes this year, not even lite.

[hedgehog]

58. Sounds like a whole new interpretation of "Don't ask, don't tell"!

As in don't ask me any tough questions, I won't tell you my answer!

She's willing to use gays and lesbians as cannon fodder, but won't come out and say that homosexual activity is not immoral? With friends like that.....



On edit; "some of my best friends are gays and lesbians......"

[DemKR]

62. We need to get past personal views of morality

Personal views mean nothing in the scheme of things. A politican can be 1000% against homosexuality, but if they supports 99%+ of gay rights legislation, isn't that what matters?

[loyalsister]

186. So........

Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond should have been evaluated in terms of their legislative records and all Republicans should have ignored any racist attutudes reflected in their personal history?
Do you think that that is also appropriate?

[Cha]

61. It's a "yes" or "no"

question. No equivocating.

[DemKR]

64. I remember just a day ago when Obama refused to be proud of his pro-choice views

He wasn't attacked by the mob....If Obama or Edwards had reacted this way, there would not be so much fluster.

[Colobo]

68. He was clearly pro choice

He said he trusted women to make the best decisions. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[DemKR]

71. And Hillary said

she supports gays and lesbians in the military. She also said she disagreed with Pace's comments. I don't think that could be any more clear. It's up to others to conclude whether homosexuality is immoral...

It's basically saying I'm standing up for religious rights but I'm fighting for a pro-GLBT cause.

[Colobo]

77. The question was

"Do you think homosexuality is inmoral?" What did she answer?

C'mon, her answer sucked. I know she's your candidate, but... even Donna Brazille acknowledges she dropped the ball there.

[DemKR]

90. Katzen, Can you atleast give her a chance to clarify this?

Think about it, why would she ask for "others to conclude" her position on homosexuality??? I honestly think she was referring to what people should believe about homosexuality. I don't think she took it as a direct question.

[Colobo]

104. I'm expecting her to clarify her position...

[CTLawGuy]

173. she didn't want to answer the question

becuase she was triangulating and didn't want to seem "too liberal."

[Cha]

69. Oh, hillary's a lightening rod all right..

And she's my senator and I don't like her for president.

[Colobo]

66. It was a simple question, and it demanded a simple answer

Yes or no. Just like asking: "Do you think racism is inmoral?" or "Do you think interracial marriages are inmoral?"

Anything else is a BS answer.

[peacebird]

70. Cowardly non-answer. This is a no-brainer. NO, homosexuality is NOT immoral.

Why is that so hard Hillary?

[cassiepriam]

72. What gives any politician the right to tell me what is moral?

They need to stay out of our bedrooms once and for all.

[DemKR]

80. They have the right to tell you

They just don't have the right to legislate it. There's a big difference.

[cassiepriam]

218. I think morality is between me and my maker. Not Hillary.

Nor any mortal politician.

[xchrom]

74. hmmm -- i wonder what her answer would have been if asked if blacks are inferior to whites?

do you think she would have said ''i'll leave that to others to decide?"'

[Colobo]

79. Good one!

[AshevilleGuy]

88. Thank you, xchrom!!! Yeah how much different would that have been?

And there is no one who would not have been offended by that, myself included.

[IndianaGreen]

215. Hillary would have said that she is very impressed with the Black people she knows

just as she is with the LGBTs she knows, essentially a new variant on the "some of my best friends are (fill-in the blank).

[I Have A Dream]

200. I thought exactly the same thing. Her answer would have been unequivocal...

as it should be and as it should have been here.

[AtomicKitten]

78. I agree with her.

She is simply saying she is not going to judge and if others want to that's on them.

It's really an appropriate answer, but that doesn't matter because - as always - this is just another opportunity to bash for those inclined to do so.

I would rather she not judge than to answer yes or no, but that's me.

[Colobo]

83. I would say "No, it's not inmoral". Why?

The "inmorality" argument is what has been used in this country to DISCRIMINATE against gays.

[AtomicKitten]

99. well that's you ---

If somebody puts a microphone in your face and asks the same question, you can answer it that way.

But Hillary was very complimentary to the gays and lesbians serving the country in her next breath, so I still think she's putting the audacity of declaring morality off on others that might choose to do so and declined to do so herself.

I still think it was the right answer. But that's me.

I try to allow people - yes, even politicians - the space to be human, distinctive and individual in every aspect. Politics really sucks from the aspect that everything the players say or do is scrutinized. It helps to understand and accept the notion that you can't please all the people all the time.

[silvermachine]

189. Actually....

....I've generally been of the opion that she deserved better treatment here than what she has received in the past. But, between her continuing to refuse to say that her vote for the war was wrong and now this, I am really sickened by her. I would still vote for her (nose firmly held) over any other GOP candidate, but that's really not saying much, frankly.

[Tellurian]

85. OH!...the misplaced outrage is astounding..

Obama basically said the same thing... Of course, his comments weren't taken out of context like Hillary's were..

Obama's comments are basically the same:

"Obama stopped short or criticizing military Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace for calling homosexuality "immoral" this week."

"We're having a ongoing debate in our culture about homosexuality," Obama said. "I believe that gays and lesbians are entitled to the rights that every American enjoys and if they are able and willing to serve in our military then we should re-examine those policies that prevent them from serving."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3135.html

So, when Hillary said, "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude." It's because there is a debate going on about homosexuality in the military RIGHT NOW! Is that too much of a stretch for y'all? Obama didn't chastise General Pace for his comment....Obama said: There's and ongoing debate...and what he left unsaid..."is it's for others to conclude!" Exactly what Hillary said..

Find some other red meat to chomp on, because your outrage is all dead wrong!

[ElizabethDC]

92. Absolutely

but most folks on DU enjoy hating on Hillary so much that they'll take every chance they can get.

[JeffR]

98. or maybe they're just appalled by her inability to give an unequivocal

response, to this or anything else. But if it makes you feel better to assume we just "enjoy hating", carry on.

[ElizabethDC]

108. it's clear that

most of the people who responded to this thread did not see the interview, and only saw that single comment in isolation. I agree that the comment sounds bad when taken out of context, and I wish that she hadn't answered that way. But everyone seems to enjoy the opportunity to say, "Hillary's a horrible person," when the rest of her comments in the interview made it pretty clear that she is supportive of gay rights.

Additionally, her calling for Gonzalez's resignation (which was what the interview was focused on) sounds pretty unequivocal to me - but when she does say things unequivocally, others just say that she doesn't mean what she says and is only pandering. So she really can't win in a lot of situations.

[JeffR]

116. I fully agree with your last point

and it's disappointing when people reflexively pull out the pandering card. But sadly, Clinton herself seems to pour fuel on that fire, often.

[silvermachine]

193. Thank you...

...well said. It's a full time job defending remarks like this, but I guess someone's gotta do it.

[FiveGoodMen]

113. Yup. We just picked Hillary at random and decided not to like her.

:eyes:

[ElizabethDC]

119. No, I don't think it's at random

I understand that there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of her, but most people on DU refuse to give her credit where credit is due (i.e., calling for Gonzalez's resignation) and are willing to heap on the criticism based on an isolated quote. There's a difference between informed, constructive criticism and blind criticism - and in Hillary's case, constructive criticism often bleeds into the blind criticism. Not that it doesn't happen to others, though.

[FiveGoodMen]

135. Since she could be our nominee

we really do have to hold her to a very high standard.

Whoever gets the White House in '09 has to expose a lot more of the Bush corruption, repair almost infinite damage to our foreign relations, undo all kinds of terrible legislation, correct the voting problems before another election gets stolen, and sell fly-over country on the Constitution and basic American values (which many now consider weak and immoral).

Every time Hillary fails to stand up for fairness, equality, peace, civil rights, whatever, it's another sign that she's not a good choice for the office.

[ElizabethDC]

141. Yes, but every time she does stand up for one of these things

people here just say she's pandering, etc. I agree that we ought to hold her to a very high standard, but she's often held to a different standard than Obama, etc. I don't agree with everything that Hillary says or does, but I do think there's often a double standard.

[karlrschneider]

160. I absolutely do not "hate" her. Not in the least but I would sure have appreciated

a uh, 'straight' answer. Even "yes" would have been far more honest and forthcoming than what she did say.

[Colobo]

93. Was Obama asked DIRECTLY: "Do you think homosexuality is inmoral?"

Because according to your quote, he was asked about Pace's comments in general, not a direct question.

In fact, I would like to hear him answer that exact question. Edwards was asked by Wolf and he said "absolutely not!". Why can't Hillary (and Obama, if he gets asked) do the same?

[Tellurian]

103. Obama passed it off..and didn't chastise Pace for the comment..same thing..

Obama was facing questions about the jealousy charge with Al Sharpton. Reporters were more interested in stirring up the rumor of trouble with Sharpton.

But the fact remain, Obama did not call it discrimination nor did he refute the General's charge!

[Colobo]

114. "Do you think homosexuality is inmoral?" I want Obama to answer

That specific question... no other questions... that exact one.

[AtomicKitten]

121. who are we or they to judge????

that's the point -- that's what HRC was saying
and that's what I would prefer Obama say rather than yes/no like you seem to want

morality is in the eye of the beholder and a yes/no - either way - would be judging

[NDP]

149. Until they begin asking the Republicans if they believe ignoring the plight of the poor is immoral

or whether it's immoral to cut financial aid for college students, the Democrats should do exactly like Clinton did and ignore this question.

[Cameron27]

155. Maybe she's decided that government should stick to what's legal

and illegal, and leave questions about morality to philosophers and priests? Discrimination against Gays is a violation of basic human rights, that's what's got to be understood.

Personally I'd have liked her to have challenged the immoral statement harder, but the her whole statement doesn't seem any worse than Obama's. (and he's my guy if Clark and Gore don't run)

[Tellurian]

211. He answered just as Sen Clinton did..

you ought to stay away from this 'shoot first ask questions later' crew..

They are dangerous to your fine tuned sensibilities. Wackos!

Here, a later article for you,

Clinton, Obama skirt queries on gays in the military

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usgays0315,0,2629782.story?track=rss

[flpoljunkie]

95. Good try! Obama was not asked the question, "is homosexuality immoral?"Hillary was, and she waffled

[AtomicKitten]

153. wrong -- she didn't waffle -- she didn't judge which was the correct response

[flpoljunkie]

164. Good try, AtomicKitten, but waffling--dodging the question is exactly what Hillary did.

[AtomicKitten]

167. she quite rightly refused to answer the question --- as it should be

She refused to answer the question saying morality is a call others can make. That isn't waffling. Again, either a yes or no answer to that particular question would have been wrong IMO. I don't want politicians answering that question. If we allow that, they will continue to try to legislate morality. Is that what you want? Because if it's not, then you better quit expecting politicians to answer those kinds of questions.

I know you really, really, really want to tag her on this, but I think you better keep looking for another blurb to trash her on because I think she did the right thing here.

[bettyellen]

187. hillary was asked if she thought it was imoral- obama wasn't asked that....

she had an opportunity to take the high road and didn't.

[carolinayellowdog]

196. Not outraged by Edwards

if Obama is as big a coward as Hillary there's an altenative

[Balderdash]

86. And I'll leave it up to others to vote for her

:kick:

[elizm]

96. It's a simple yes or no...

EASY answer. The fact that she could not or would not answer NO tells volumes about her, and how she would 'lead'.

[flpoljunkie]

107. CNN just excused Hillary by saying she "lacked spontaneity" but this trait would serve her well--

in the general election. They also quoted Senator Warner, R-Virginia who said, "I respectfully, but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral." The Chairman is General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[elizm]

123. Hillary better learn some 'contrition' and fast...

..Maybe she will never say her Iraq war vote was wrong...but this shit just will not fly. I have long thought she would show her true colors as time passes...I'm just shocked that she slipped up this soon.

[Tellurian]

138. As well as jumping on people serves you well, stirring something up that doesn't exist..

heh..you're real treat...

[flpoljunkie]

150. Even Sen. Warner R-VA had no problem saying he strongly disagreed that homosexuality is immoral

"I respectfully, but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," - Senator John Warner, R-VA

Too bad Hillary Clinton is so lacking in "spontaneity"--I call it spinelessness--that she cannot answer a direct question.

[David Zephyr]

184. Excellent observation and point, flpoljunkie

This has permanently sealed it with me and the Clintons.

[flpoljunkie]

197. From Chicago's Windy City Times: 2004 Statement from Obama on DOMA, DADT

Obama on Marriage

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4018

As an African-American man, a child of an interracial marriage, a committed scholar, attorney and activist who works to protect the Bill of Rights, I am sensitive to the struggle for civil rights. As a state Senator, I have taken on the issue of civil rights for the LGBT community as if they were my own struggle because I believe strongly that the infringement of rights for any one group eventually endangers the rights enjoyed under law by the entire population. Since 1996, I have been the sponsor or a chief co-sponsor of measures to expand civil liberties for the LGBT community including hate-crimes legislation, adoption rights and the extension of basic civil rights to protect LGBT persons from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, employment and credit.

Today, I am a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Unlike any of my opponents, I have a legislative track record. No one has to guess about what I will do in Washington. My record makes it very clear. I will be an unapologetic voice for civil rights in the U.S. Senate.

For the record, I opposed DOMA in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted ... .

When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. ...

Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress. ...

We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize—equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.

I know how important the issue of equal rights is to the LGBT community. I share your sense of urgency. If I am elected U.S. Senator, you can be confident that my colleagues in the Senate and the President will know my position.

Barack Obama

Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate

[elizm]

159. I think you meant...

You are a real treat. When you form a contraction with you are (You're)...you still need the word..a.. in the sentence.

[Cha]

194. For America's sake I hope

she doesn't have that opportunity to show off her "trait"..lack of "spontaneity" in the general.

[DemKR]

101. Obama won't call for the overturning of DADT

And just says it needs to be "re-examined." But that is satisfying enough to you?? not me. Hillary has been so much stronger on this issue.

[Colobo]

102. Edwards answered "no" when asked if homosexuality is inmoral

Why can't the other candidates, ours included, do the same?

[DemKR]

Katzen, I agree with you

I am myself gay. Why would Hillary say she'd leave HER position on the morality for "others to conclude?" I honestly think she was just trying to say that moral positions are up to the individuals to conclude, i.e. Pace. I am SURE she will clarify.

[Tellurian]

120. Because the debate is going on about Gays in the military..

Hillary and Obama are saying the same thing. Whether you want to admit it not.

[Colobo]

131. Tell, she was asked if homosexuality is inmoral or not

That's the question she was asked.

[JeffR]

106. What does Obama have to do with Sen. Clinton's inability

to give a straight answer to the question? Why change the subject?

[DemKR]

111. It has a lot to do with it

Since I posted the thread about ten minutes ago, I have not seen any usage of "WEAK" to describe his positions even though they are less pro-GLBT than Hillary's. My point is this is all about I hate Hillary so whatever she does is subject to my criticism, buT I love Obama so I'll go softer on him.

[JeffR]

126. Seems to me this is about two different topics

and there's ample room to criticize Obama's equivocation. But I understood the topic in question here to be Clinton's equivocation, not Obama's.

[flpoljunkie]

199. See post #197. Obama 2004 Statement on DOMA, DADT

We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize—equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4018

[The Blue Flower]

105. They're moral if they're cannon fodder

That's what I took from her statement. Those who aren't willing to be cannon fodder? They're the immoral ones.

[Tellurian]

124. A bizarre statement if there ever was one! nm

[earthlover]

110. We must not forget....Hillary is in it to win....

She will say anything to get elected, and even if she supports gays, she won't put her ass on the line and say so publically. Nope, not her. She is the epitome of someone who tries to talk out of both sides of her mouth.

Do you think murder is immoral? I will leave that for others to decide...Do you think Hillary would answer THAT question that way? Of course not.

Sorry, but I just can't take Hillary or any politician that epitomises the slimy definition of the word politicisn seriously.

This is the perfect example of why Hillary cannot be elected. She is not real. She is packaged. And she packages all her answers. Winds up pissing everyone off because she was too frickin afraid of getting them mad. Poor management skills illustrated.

[Cameron27]

163. When you begin to answer questions about injustice

with morality, you end up with this:

REV. RON SCHENCK: The court has said today that morality, matters of right and wrong behavior, do not matter in the law. That is an undermining of our concept of justice in this country. We base our laws on concepts of right and wrong human behavior.

In the case out of Texas, it was not a matter of invasion of privacy. The facts of the case do not indicate that the police went into an apartment to arrest two individuals engaged in homosexual intercourse. That is not the facts of this case.

The facts of this case are that the police entered an apartment on report of an individual who had a weapon. When they entered the apartment, they found two individuals engaged in an illegal act and they made an arrest which is what they swear to do. When a police officer is told that the concepts of right and wrong that inform the law no longer matter, it demoralizes not only the law enforcement officials, but it demoralizes the culture.

The fact is that homosexual behavior is immoral. It is wrong. And what the court has said today is that right and wrong, morality versus immorality, no longer matters in the law. That is wrong, and it undermines our concept of justice, and it demoralizes our culture."
______________________________________________________________________________________________

You got to fight on the basis of law based on constitutional rights, because every moron has his/her own perception of morality.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/26/bn.01.html

[AndyA]

117. Thanks, Hillary.

You truly are a politician.

And right now, another politician is the last thing this country needs.

[w4rma]

122. How can anyone still defend that windsock? Or expect her to say or do anything of substance?

This is the way she is. This is how the DLC operates. They avoid *everything*. They trick all sides of debates into believing that they might do something for them. Then they get into office and help big businesses and stab everyone else in the back.

If you want more excuses and non-answers back this DLCer.

[Tellurian]

127. Correcting Lies and Innuendo, twisted facts..

how else would you know whats going on...but choose to believe what you want.

[w4rma]

137. I've watched how they operate. I know how she (and her major backers) like to avoid answers much

like Bush does. She's a trickster who will screw over the Democratic base, just like the rest of the DLC does at every turn for the sake of the ultra-wealthy who own the big businesses.

[JetCityLiberal]

139. kick

great post.

[Tellurian]

142. Parroting the Party line..cue up ...the old DLC BS...has been debunked a million times..

find another rag to chew on!

[w4rma]

144. Do you really believe that the DLC is fighting for the average American? (nt)

[DemKR]

147. On the DLC

An organization I completely disagree with on trade and many other issues. But I don't have to agree with someone 100% of the time for them to get my vote.

[w4rma]

148. Make Hillary the nominee and you put the DLC back into control of the Democratic Party.

At least until she loses the general election (and hurts all the Democrats down-ticket) because she is so polarizing.

[DemKR]

151. In all honesty, when did they stop controlling the party?

The blue dogs get to dictate everything for god's sake. My biggest issue is what judges people are going to appoint. If they are judges that aren't going to look into 1776 to interpret the constitution (i.e. slavery, racial segregation) I don't have a problem with it.

Hillary, Obama, and Edwards support the vast majority of a progressive agenda. Hillary has the experience to win and knows how to fight back against the RW machine.

[w4rma]

154. Look at who the Democratic chairman is currently. Look at the House Speaker.

Look at the chairs of most of the committees. They are not DLCers. The House Majority Leader is DLC. Lieberman is .. I suppose he's still DLC, he is one chair in the Senate.

Reid isn't DLC, although he's more socially conservative than most would like (The DLC is economically "conservative" --or "liberal", outside the country--).

Look at the past battles over all of these positions and notice that in most cases the DLCer lost (after a huge fight) to the folks currently in the leadership.

[DemKR]

156. Sorry w4r, but that's guilt by association

Look at the chairs of most of the committees. They are not DLCers.
And that changes how by selecting a new President?

The House Majority Leader is DLC. -- Right, elected by the vast majority of the new Democrats in the 110th Congress, many of them liberals. By the way, I was for Murtha.

Lieberman is .. I suppose he's still DLC, he is one chair in the Senate.--Can't argue with this one, it's unbelieveable. the homeland security committee no less.

Reid isn't DLC, although he's more socially conservative than most would like. Okay, I agree, but because he isn't DLC you don't have an objection to him?

[w4rma]

157. No. It makes a DLCer our nominee who will be allowed lots of leeway. She won't win the general.

She is far to divisive to win the general election. And what's worse is that Republicans will swarm out to vote just to vote against her and that will harm every Democrat in the country who is also running for office, down-ticket.

If she did get into power, and I am nearly positive that she is unelectable, they can do a lot of damage from there. They can put a lot of pressure on who gets to run in different races around the country. They can divert funds. They can cause general havoc within the Democratic Party. And they can shut down/turn against them the grass roots movement that they have always opposed. Or a non-DLCer can do a lot of good from there.

[DemKR]

158. She doesn't run the DLC, she runs their "American Dream Initiative"

The pillars:

DLC | Key Document | July 24, 2006
The American Dream Initiative
Editor's Note: This book is available as a PDF for easier printing.
(File may take a few moments to download as it is 1.8 MB).
Click here for more about the American Dream Initiative.

THE STATE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

For 230 years, Americans have been united by the common dream of a future even greater than our past. The promise of American life, handed on through a dozen generations, rests on this basic bargain: Each of us should have the opportunity to live up to our God-given potential, and the responsibility to make the most of it. In America, anyone willing to work for it deserves the chance to get ahead.

In the 20th century, that basic bargain built the greatest middle class the world has ever known. The expansion of opportunity in return for hard work and sacrifice made us the richest, safest, strongest nation on earth. It gave us the will and the means to improve our way of life for all here at home, and to conquer fascism and communism abroad. Our values, our culture, and our politics became part of a common quest to make tomorrow better than today.

We ended the last century with America's economic might at its zenith, with Americans at their most optimistic, and with nearly all who endeavored to make the most of their opportunities and talents getting ahead in life. Yet over the last five years we've taken a different direction -- one that offered the greatest help to those with the most wealth under the mistaken belief that when the wealthy do even better, the middle class will eventually get their share. A policy of fiscal discipline and budget surpluses was abandoned for one that racked up record debt and proclaimed that deficits don't matter.

That misguided economic philosophy has shortchanged America, and shaken the foundations of the American Dream. For the first time ever, we've had four straight years of rising productivity and falling incomes. Many Americans are earning less, while the costs of a middle-class life have soared: In the past five years, college costs are up 50 percent, health care up 73 percent, and gasoline more than 100 percent. Rising housing costs have driven people farther and farther from their work.

The increasing costs of health care, transportation, and retirement are holding our economy back. U.S. companies and workers have to compete against companies and workers from countries that have made education the top national priority, take energy efficiency seriously, and spend half as much on health care as we do, with better results. Squeezed by rising costs and rising pressures of the global economy, American employers struggle to keep up their part of the bargain to create jobs and help workers do better.

As Washington has piled on over $1 trillion in new debt, many families have also been forced to borrow more at higher interest rates and have stopped saving altogether. From a period of confidence and affluence only six years ago, Americans are now saddled with record debt, and the savings rate last year was negative for the first time since the Great Depression. A lot of Americans can't work any harder, borrow much more, or save any less.

These trends are not just a burden on our economy and on middle-class families. They undermine our way of life, because middle-class strength and growth have been the backbone of America.

Together we can face that challenge. Throughout our history, America has responded to new challenges with a new faith in our basic bargain. The world has changed over the past 50 years, and the terms of our basic bargain must keep pace.

The chance for every American to get ahead, regardless of background, is the engine of America's economic growth and social progress. A growing economy and a growing middle class go hand in hand. After World War II, the investments America made in the American Dream -- from sending millions of veterans to college on the GI Bill to making housing affordable through the FHA -- spurred economic growth and enabled ordinary people to take advantage of that growth. Today, as then, the key to expanding the middle class is both increasing economic growth and increasing ordinary Americans' opportunity to make the most of it. The fiscal discipline in this agenda provides a firm foundation for economic growth. The investments in the American Dream will increase innovation, expand job creation and income growth, and help every American take advantage of the nation's economic progress.

To remain strong in the world, the American Dream must be strong and alive here at home. And as we continue to navigate through these changing economic times, restoring the promise of the American Dream is the central economic issue of our time. We will not stand for a national government that would let the American Dream just fade away.

The American Dream Initiative is an opportunity agenda for the middle class and all who aspire to join its ranks. Our vision is straightforward and clear: to leave our children a richer, safer, smarter, and stronger nation than the one we inherited. We believe that every citizen should have the opportunity to secure the pillars of the American Dream: a college degree, a home, a secure retirement, and the chance to get ahead in a growing economy.

A NEW OPPORTUNITY AGENDA

Here are the pillars of a new opportunity agenda:

* Every American should have the opportunity and responsibility to go to college and earn a degree, or to get the lifelong training they need.

* Every worker should have the opportunity and responsibility to save for a secure retirement.

* Every business should have the opportunity to grow and prosper in the strongest private economy on earth, and the responsibility to equip workers with the same tools of success as management.

* Every individual should have the opportunity and responsibility to start building wealth from day one, and the security and community that come from owning a home.

* Every family should have the opportunity to afford health insurance for their children, and the responsibility to obtain it.

* In order to expand opportunity for all Americans, we must demand a new ethic of responsibility from Washington: to put government's priorities back in line with our values -- and its books back in balance -- by getting rid of wasteful corporate subsidies, unchecked bureaucracy, and narrow-interest loopholes; collecting taxes that are owed; clamping down on tens of billions of dollars in improper payments and no bid-contracts; and restoring commonsense budgeting principles like pay-as-you-go.

Can you disagree with any of that?

[w4rma]

161. That DLC press release is lots of platatudes and nothing of substance. It's par for the course.

They hide their intentions and their agenda behind a fantasy of expectations.

[w4rma]

174. And to respond to your other comments as I only responded to the first of the four.

I was for Murtha also. He lost because we all botched up that campaign and the attack on him was so fast that folks didn't even see it coming or in many cases didn't even know what happened.

agreed.

I don't object to Reid, or his leadership in the Senate. I think he does a fantastic job there, which is why I support him and hold absolutely no objections to him.

[AJH032]

132. Coming from anyone else, I bet DU would love this response

Right? I mean, why not? Isn't that our view? That the Government (meaning those in Government, which Hillary is) should not tell citizens what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, that these decisions should be left to us?

So, exactly what did Hillary say that went against that?

Or is who said it more important than what was said?

[Tellurian]

143. Are you saying Hillary and Hillary alone, decides what the government is to Think?

[Cameron27]

166. The government tells us what's legal or illegal

based on the constitution. Is there a clause about immorality?

[AtomicKitten]

170. *

[Cameron27]

172. That's exactly what happens

when people fight over *morals* :banghead:

[AshevilleGuy]

203. The question to her stemmed from a powerful person saying it is immoral.

As a future commander in chief she was asked (in so many words) if she agrees with the top general's bigoted opinion. She refused to say. It wasn't an improper question out of the blue.

Repuke Senator Warner had no problem refuting him - why couldn't she?

[CTLawGuy]

165. this is typical Clintonian triangulation

of course she is not going to stick her neck out for gay people, she might lose the "values" voters. :eyes:

[Az_lefty]

168. Hillary always lets someone else decide before taking a position

this is nothing new for her.

[Alhena]

175. It was the smart answer ...

Hillary is playing for the general election and she knows that any liberals who are outraged over that answer she gave are going to vote Democratic regardless. She's playing for the moderates and she doesn't want to offend them. So she gave the smart answer, politically speaking. I am no fan of Hillary, but I tend not to get outraged when politicians do the smart thing politically. Just like I didn't get upset when my guy Obama was pandering to AIPAC. It's just part of the game.

[bettyellen]

185. I won't vote for any Dem regardless, I won't donate or work to get them elected

can't do it if they seem too republican, i'll sit it out.

[David Zephyr]

176. Wake up my fellow gays and lesbian friends. This woman will not stand with us. Ever.

Her husband deserted us with his cop out Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Her husband allowed thousands of good American boys and girls to be drummed out of the military for not having "done" anything wrong, but because of "who" there were.

I am no fan of the Clintons. They took me for a ride already. I'm off of their ego-serving, ambition driven form of "public service".

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[AshevilleGuy]

202. Besides that, two things really bother me about this:

1) You might expect this crap from a Brownback or a Duncan Hunter; but from Hilary???? Or any of the other Dem candidates??? I thought we were well past this shit.

2) Unless Gore comes in, she will almost certainly be installed as our nominee. You can just feel the inevitability. Her husband can get her nominated, but he can't elect her, and shit like this is why people don't trust her.

And now we will never really know what she thinks. She will have to "fix" this somehow, but we won't know if it is sincere.

[Schema Thing]

178. Makes me proud to support Wes Clark

His support for true equality for gay people is unambiguous.

[donco6]

180. In other words:

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude. I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can."



Gays are OK as long as they're providing something worthwhile. But I have no opinion on whether they are inherently immoral or not.

Wow. Thanks.

[ChiciB1]

190. Well.... Your Standard "Middle Of The Road, Please Don't Make Me Take

A Stand" answer. IMO, a cop-out... but I guess it's the way POLITICS are done today. No matter what, don't give anyone any AMMO!

Kind of sick and I don't like it one bit! Play SAFE... Be SAFE!

Myself, I need more MEAT!!!

[dapper]

192. uh..but Hillary is a Lesbian....

Atleasst that's what some of the rethugs I know believe.

Bash Hillary all you want but why not ask the other candidates their view to see how they respond.

Dapper

[I Have A Dream]

198. Oh, man! She's going to let others conclude. Who?

The religious right?

I'm losing more and more respect for her over time.

:puke:

[HughBeaumont]

206. Geeeeeez, that would be a resounding NO, if you need guidance.

Her support of free-trade and job offshoring is why I'll never vote for her, but this waffling answer is uncalled for. Gay rights = human rights. End of sentence. Leave the fundamentalpatients in the 19th century.

[Moochy]

207. "No it is not immoral."

All she had to say was "No, it is not immoral. "

But that would have nailed her down to a particular set of moral codes.
Some of her possible constituency may feel it is immoral..
She can't risk offending potential supporters!!

[orleans]

210. she was asked if she agreed with pace about homosexuality being immoral.

leaving it up for others to conclude?? she was asked for HER opinion. she went on to say she was proud of gays who work for our country but...she didn't have the integrity to state if she thought they were immoral or not.

note to hillary: the right/proper/"moral" answer:
"I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL."

very simple.

tisk, tisk, tisk....

if she doesn't have the integrity or the courage to state HER OPINION on this then how can we expect her to make the proper decisions as president?

i just heard malloy reading off what obama's answers were when he was asked the same question. and he is JUST AS DISAPPOINTING!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

214. Does she have any principle other than furthering her self-interest?

If we nominate her, we might as well rip the donkeys off our lapels and pin elephants on. She does not even believe in the fundamental Democratic predicate of equality for all. What real differences are there between her and Giuliani?

[wiley]

216. Sorry, but f*ck Andy Sullivan

Read Edwards quote in the latest Advocate and you tell me who. The Puke quotes are even funnier and TRUE. Don't ever pass on Sullivan trash to denounce any Democrat. You may as well quote Rove or Cheney.

[flpoljunkie]

220. Then read what Kos has to say on this...Both Sully and Kos quote ABC's Jake Tapper

Hillary on homosexuality
(From ABC's Jake Tapper's blog)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/03/senator...

I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is "immoral." Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law -- signed by her husband in 1993 -- was a mistake, and if homosexuality is "immoral."

"General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is not working," she said. "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war -- when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army -- we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are."

But is it immoral?

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."


KOS:

She can tell those gays and lesbians she knows and is proud of that she is too afraid to say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, they are not "immoral".

Here's how Warner put it:

The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace's view that homosexual acts are immoral.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held."

It's not that hard to say the right thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/14/17176/7130

[wiley]

224. Yes, her response was really odd. I think they are all cracking. Edwards,

Kucinich, Clinton etc. have all said really bizarre things recently regarding homosexuality.

[spiderpig]

217. Oh, c'mon!

Quit pandering to the bigoted nutballs. You know what you believe! You're dissipating your base with these nebulous statements. You know what's right. Say it and stick by it.

Jeez!

[enough already]

222. Hopefully more will see the light about her after these gutless, cowardly comments

THIS is why some of us refuse to support her in the general if god forbid she is the nominee.

[autorank]

223. The answer is "NO" "It's not immoral. What kind of jackass question is that?"

Now, isn't that easy, doesn't if feel good. Try it Hillary. Take a stand. Convince us you're not
a suburbanite provincal.

[wiley]

225. Hillary and Obama have explained themselves. I feel better. But this piece of fecal

matter, Garrison Keillor, has earned the right to be called Sean Hannity's hemorrhoid cleaner.

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor