Obama hasn't done more for gay rights than Clinton did

[dsc]

I know it is popular for many to say he has but it is just plain, flat out, gold carat, wrong. Under Clinton AIDS funding, for prevention, research and treatment went through the roof.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art12874.html

The Clinton Administration has responded aggressively to the significant threat posed by HIV/AIDS with increased attention to research, prevention, and treatment. Overall funding for AIDS-related programs within HHS has increased by 150 percent under the Clinton Administration, with funding for AIDS care under the HHS Health Resources and Services Administration's Ryan White CARE Act increasing by 358 percent and assistance for the purchase of AIDS drugs increasing by 965 percent. The FY 2001 budget includes $9.2 billion in total HIV/AIDS funding within HHS.

Under the Clinton Administration, discretionary spending for AIDS research, prevention, and treatment has increased dramatically. Altogether, discretionary AIDS-related spending by HHS in FY 2000 will total $8.5 billion, up from $2.1 billion in FY 1993. In addition, at least $3.9 billion is expected to be expended in FY 2000 for AIDS care under Medicare and Medicaid, up from $1.6 billion in FY 1993. It is estimated that more than 50 percent of Americans living with AIDS rely on Medicaid for their health care coverage.

end of quote, lots more at link

Bill Clinton ended anti gay discrimination in every single, solitary, federal government position except the uniformed military where he got defeated in Congress. That meant gay CIA agents, gay FBI agents, gay civilian Pentagon employees, and gay whole bunch of other federal employees. His justice department interviened on the side of gay plaintiffs in suits against schools where the gay kids had been bullied. He appointed the first gay Senate confirmed appointee (Roberta Actenburg) and the first gay ambassador (James Hormel).

He did all of the above in an era in which over 1/4 of all states, including MA, had sodomy laws on the books. He did this in an era when AIDS was still considered, by many people, God's divine punishment upon gays. In short, he did this when gays were still culturally a despised minority by a significant portion, if not majority, of the populace.

Clinton wasn't perfect. Like Obama is doing now, Clinton squandered his first Congress and didn't get gay friendly legislation passed. Obama has only managed hate crimes and it appears he won't get anything else through this Congress. I am not saying Obama hasn't done anything. The hospital visitation piece, provided it comes with real teeth, is a big deal. Hate crimes isn't trivial. But the distance Clinton got the federal government to move on gay rights, from nowhere to somewhere was a huge deal. Given the massive change in attitudes toward gays, which neither Obama nor Clinton deserve much credit for, Obama got far less accomplished here than Clinton did in his era. In 1993, a majority of the public opposed gays in the military, barely favored ENDA, and supported hate crimes. Now 70% of the populace, and a majority of both conservative and Republicans support the elimination of DADT, ENDA, and hate crimes. Clinton was either fighting public opinion or facing a divided public. Obama faces a public that largley agrees with the major goals of the gay community. Obama was handed a much more gay friendly country in which to accomplish things for the gay community. The fact his list is, at best, barely better than Clinton's is frankly pretty depressing. If he gets DADT repeal through, and it results in openly gay solders and sailors serving with, and being treated the same as their straight bretheren, then I might entertain the notion that Obama has done more for the gay community than Bill Clinton did but right now it isn't much of a contest.

On edit, to say Obama did more than Clinton is like saying that a teacher who gets more AP stats students to pass a certain math test is better than one who got fewer algebra students to pass the very same test. On one level, simply counting the number who passed the test, you would be right, but on the deeper level, which teacher had more learning happen in his classroom you would quite likely be wrong.

[golfguru]

1. Obama is for DOMA n/t

[jenmito]

6. Obama is AGAINST DOMA. n/t

[golfguru]

9. These articles from Huff Post & Am Blog say I am right

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/obamas-doma-defense-unacc_b_215718.html
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

[jenmito]

10. He has said, many times, that he wants to repeal DOMA. Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/294/support-repeal-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act/

[golfguru]

12. OH OK, may be his personal desire differs from Justice Dept.

[jenmito]

13. You're wrong. The DOJ defended current policy. They had to. MY link above shows the fact. n/t

[dsc]

14. just like Jerry Brown and Gov Schwartzeneger had to defend prop 8

no wait, they didn't defend prop 8. The fact is Obama could have decided not to defend DOMA at all. Failing that he could have made sure the brief wasn't nearly as inflammatory as it was. He did neither of those things.

[jenmito]

16. So you just ignore the Politifact link? n/t

[golfguru]

17. Is DOMA still on the books as a law? n/t

[dsc]

23. yeah when the evidence directly contradicts it

Jerry Brown not only didn't defend prop 8, but when a group sued to force him to, it said he didn't have to. On top of that the brief submitted by the Obama DOJ could have been written by Focus on the Family and will be sited by them every single, solitary time gay rights issues of any kind come up. Not only did the brief compare gays wanting marriage equality to incest, it directly stated that gays aren't covered by the 14th amendment. It was a gift to the anti gay right that will keep on giving.

[ClarkUSA]

44. Uh huh. Speaking of "evidence"... there is none to support your specious claim in the OP.

Quite the opposite.

Fact Check: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=430094&mesg_id=430313

Oh, and Politifact is right, too.

[boppers]

86. sited?

*cited

[LostinVA]

113. You said it -- +1

[CTLawGuy]

168. If they are not defending prop 8

they are not doing their job. As much as Jerry Brown might personally despise prop 8, it's not his place to pick and choose which laws to defend based on his personal beliefs.

What if the lawsuit weren't prop 8 but rather affirmative action and it was a Republican AG? Should they be allowed to not defend the lawsuit then?

[TheWraith]

161. California law doesn't require the AG to defend a law. Federal law DOES require the DOJ to.

And you're conveniently ignoring the fact that neither Obama nor any of his hires or appointees had anything to do with the first brief, which was written by Bush-hired lawyers.

[scheming daemons]

18. Clinton SIGNED DOMA... and created DADT

[golfguru]

20. Correct and Obama has not been able or willing to repeal it n/t

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

24. No Congress created DADT

after they beat Clinton when he tried to allow gays to serve. At the time it was a big improvement. If you don't believe me, then you maybe could read Randy Shilts definative book on the subject (Conduct Unbecoming). It describes, in unflinching detail, exactly what life was like for gay and lesbian service personel pre DADT. It wasn't pretty in any sense of the word.

[CTLawGuy]

38. Clinton's name is on it

NT

[dsc]

52. so is Kerry's (he voted for the exact same bill Clinton signed)

so is he responsible for it too?

[ProSense]

54. You keep making this inaccurate statement just to defend Clinton

Kerry opposed DOMA.

[dsc]

57. yes he did

but when presented with the defense budget of that year which included DOMA (the very bill Clinton signed) he voted for it. You can spin like a dreidel but the fact is that Kerry voted for the bill and yes I have provided you a direct link to back that up when I first stated it.

[ProSense]

60. No,

he didn't.

Question: On Passage of the Bill (h.r.3396 )
Vote Number: 280 Vote Date: September 10, 1996, 02:42 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 3396 (Defense of Marriage Act )
Measure Title: A bill to define and protect the institution of marriage.
Vote Counts: YEAs 85
NAYs 14
Not Voting 1


NAYs ---14
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Pell (D-RI)
Robb (D-VA)
Simon (D-IL)
Wyden (D-OR)

link

[dsc]

64. Try reading

I was referring to DADT not DOMA. It isn't my fault you can't or won't read. My post clearly states DADT. It is unambiguous.

[ProSense]

73. "I was referring to DADT not DOMA." What difference does it make?

Kerry opposed both of them. He voted to strip DADT from the bill

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 (S. AMDT. 783 to S. 1298) to prevent codification of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on lesbians and gays in the military. The amendment failed 33-63 (Record Vote No. 250). HRC supported this amendment. Biden also supported it.

link

[dsc]

76. I never said he didn't

but faced with either voting for the whole bill, with DADT in it, or voting against the whole bill, he voted for the whole bill. So given the very same choice Clinton faced, he did what Clinton did. Clinton didn't have a line item veto so he couldn't just strip out DADT so he was faced with voting the whole bill up or down just like Kerry was and he did what Kerry did. BTW I don't blame Kerry for DADT either but the fact is either both are to blame, in part, or neither are since they both did the very same thing (advocate strongly for gays to serve but then voted or signed to have DADT).

[ProSense]

82. Oh please.

Kerry spoke out against DADT and to the administration. Clinton opened the can of worms and then refused to take stand with those opposing the amendment. There was nothing preventing a Democratic Congress from preventing the amendment from being stripped when it garnered 33 votes. If Clinton pushed he could have gotten the votes to prevent it's passage. He likely didn't want to have to make the executive decision on gays in the military.

[dsc]

98. He didn't have the votes, period

Thanks to the likes of Sam Nunn there were way too many Democrats unwilling to vote to allow gays to serve. We had the following Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle. Boren, Bumpers, Byrd, Breaux, Exon, Ford, Heflin, Hollings, Johnson, Mathews, Nunn, Pryor, Sasser, and Shelby (before he switched parties). I don't see any of them voting for allowing gays to serve with the possible exception of Bumpers. I also don't see any of them supporting a veto of the defense bill again except maybe Bumpers and Pryor. We had 55 Democratic Senators at the time. Without those we were down to 41. There were two Republicans total who might have voted for gays in the military Chaffee of RI and Jeffords of VT. That makes 43. Given the need for positive action to let gays serve 43 wasn't enough.

Clinton didn't have stop loss to use to prevent gays from being discharged nor did he have the ability to slow down discharges pending a change, which everyone knew wouldn't happen. Thus he needed Congress to pass a law and Congress wouldn't with those numbers.

[dionysus]

155. so when clinton "doesn't have the votes" for something, he's an innocent angel. when obama doesn't

have the votes for something, it's his fault he couldn't force congress.

your double standard is astounding.

[Lord Helmet]

172. like when the O-man didn't have the votes for the public option

you weren't nearly as generous then

go hypocrite!

[ClarkUSA]

62. Stop digging. ProSense has just proven you wrong with a link to the actual vote.

It's pretty obvious you're wrong on all counts. You have your opinions but none of them bear any resemblance to the facts.

[dsc]

65. No he didn't

I was referring, in the very deceptively titled post Kerry's name is on DADT, to DADT not DOMA. It isn't my fault you can't or won't read.

[ClarkUSA]

67. Yes, it's obvious that nothing is ever Clinton's fault, even DADT & DOMA.

Even his defending anti-gay ads in 1996. And his anti-gay marriage stance during his entire presidency and most of his retirement since.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from alright... :crazy:

[dsc]

71. I already did but since you may not have been in the thread where I did so I will provide the link

for you, but then I would like you to type the following words (I am sorry I didn't read your post and then accused you of being a liar).

Here is the link http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380

Here is a quote from the link

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (Conference Report on H.R.2401 )
Vote Number: 380 Vote Date: November 17, 1993, 02:13 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 2401 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 )
Measure Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 22
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boren (D-OK), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Bradley (D-NJ), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brown (R-CO), Nay
Bryan (D-NV), Yea
Bumpers (D-AR), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (D-CO), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Cohen (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coverdell (R-GA), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
D'Amato (R-NY), Nay
Danforth (R-MO), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
DeConcini (D-AZ), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-KS), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting
Durenberger (R-MN), Yea
Exon (D-NE), Yea
Faircloth (R-NC), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Ford (D-KY), Yea
Glenn (D-OH), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hatfield (R-OR), Nay
Heflin (D-AL), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnston (D-LA), Yea
Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea
Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerrey (D-NE), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Nay
Mathews (D-TN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Metzenbaum (D-OH), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Mitchell (D-ME), Yea
Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea
Moynihan (D-NY), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Packwood (R-OR), Nay
Pell (D-RI), Yea
Pressler (R-SD), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Riegle (D-MI), Yea
Robb (D-VA), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Roth (R-DE), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Sasser (D-TN), Yea
Shelby (D-AL), Yea
Simon (D-IL), Yea
Simpson (R-WY), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Wallop (R-WY), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wofford (D-PA), Yea

This is the bill Clinton wound up signing which included DADT.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Clinton being responsible for DADT & DOMA and defending anti-gay ads in 1996 is excusable, eh?

I guess this is okay with you, too? http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill-clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html

Gee, it's not hard to see where you're coming from, is it? :eyes:

[dsc]

78. Clinton isn't responsible for DADT unless both Kennedy and Kerry are too

either all three are responsible or none are. They all three did the same exact thing. Advocated strongly for permitting gays to serve but then supported the bill instituting DADT. As to your other point, as usual, you just made shit up about what I posted. I directly said, in very clear words, that it was wrong for Clinton to crow about signing DOMA, it is in this thread in a post your responded to, so you either can't read posts or won't read them and then just make shit up. And typical of you, after I provided a link saying exactly and precisely what I said was true was indeed true, instead of an apology I get a post of made up shit.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Clinton is responsible for DADT, DOMA, defending anti-gay ads in 1996 & telling Kerry to throw gays

... under the bus in 2004: http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill-clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html

He, like Obama, opposed gay marriage while he was president and most of his post-presidency as well... yet you are outraged at Obama's position but very forgiving of Bubba to a point of making excuses and drawing false parallels.

Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=430094&mesg_id=430588

Yeah, it's obvious where you're coming from... despite the fact Clinton was a gutless wonder when it came to DADT & DOMA to the point of approving of anti-gay ads and refusing to pull them but it's obvious that you're okay with it. I and others who lived through that era are not.

[dsc]

108. if you beleive Bob Shrum, which I don't

clearly Avaros does which is his, and your, perogative. As to the other thing, I have said twice, and you have evidenlty just decided that you are going to ignore, that Clinton was wrong when he crowed about signing DOMA. I am not saying Clinton is without error but I fail to see why somehow it is worse for Clinton to have signed DOMA than it is for Obama to defend it in court.

[ClarkUSA]

151. Why would he lie? Bill Clinton is the original Pander Bear who executed a mentally-retarded man

... to show he was tough on crime. :puke:

And Kerry has never denied Bob Shrum's story, which is revealing.

<< "why somehow it is worse for Clinton to have signed DOMA than it is for Obama to defend it in court" >>

Again with a disingenuous claim... Obama never defended DOMA in court. If you're talking about the DoJ, that is a separate but equal branch of government that is charged with defending federal laws. Until Congress repeals DOMA, that will be the case, no pun intended.

[CTLawGuy]

166. the DOJ is not Obama's personal lawyer

the DOJ defends the government, in its corporate form, and the government believes its laws are constitutional as a rule.

If a president could pick and choose which laws to defend based on his personal preferences then you weaken the separation of powers and you allow the president to legislate through the courts.

What if this guy Miller in AK, who thinks SS is unconstitutional, became president? And what if some teabagger then challenged the constitutionality of SS?

Should the DOJ be permitted to agree with the teabagger in court?

[dionysus]

156. a smidgeon of a double standard, huh.

[ClarkUSA]

158. Laughably so...

I'm not surprised, of course.

[Lord Helmet]

174. sure if by smidgeon you mean a big smelly pile of double standard

[CTLawGuy]

165. how Bill Clinton is not anathema

in the LGBT community is beyond me. Obama gets twice the venom for not moving fast enough to repeal the very laws Clinton put his name on as Clinton does for signing those laws.

[ClarkUSA]

171. Also, I don't ever see any outrage over Hillary the Homophobe.

After all, she has always opposed gay marriage and she supported DOMA during Bill the Homophobe's presidency:

Clinton opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

... Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying,"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/HillaryClinton.htm

[CTLawGuy]

175. I've always wondered about that double standard

NT

[karynnj]

160. Kerry voted against the DOMA amendment

He was the only Senator up for office that did so.

[karynnj]

159. Kerry spoke in favor of gays in the military and testified before Thurmond's

Armed Services committee in favor of that. If you read his speech he speaks against the provisions that do not allow them to serve openly. He took a far stronger position than Clinton. The compromise was Clinton's - and the choice for a Senator was to either vote for it or against it. Voting against it was considered NEGATIVE by gay equality advocates. There is no equivalence here. Would you have wanted Kerry to vote with Thurmond?

[CTLawGuy]

164. for voting for it yes

NT

[msongs]

2. did clinton survey the wives of soldiers for permission to give gays their rights? nt

[dsc]

3. In fairness, Clinton's ignorance of the military culture bit him on the ass

when he tried to get them to let gays serve. I find the surveys as written appalling but a decent survey, given to current military personell, might have been justifyable.

[ncteechur]

4. Are you comparing 20 months in office to the entirety of Clinton's 8 years??

And how is AIDS funding a gay rights issue?

[dsc]

5. back then AIDS funding was nearly entirely a gay issue

Gay men were dropping like flies. Nearly every male gay who is my age or older can read a litany of people who they know who died of that disease. Gay men were easily three quarters of existing US AIDS cases in the early 1990's. As to your other point, most of his accomplishments were in the first two years. Actenburg was confirmed in his first Congress, much of the increase in AIDS funding was in that first Congress, the lifting of the discrimination against gay employees was during his first term and I think that first Congress. Only Hormel was later, and that was thanks to Jesse Helms, who as ranking member and then Chair of the Foreign Relations committee was able to keep Hormel bottled up for years. Eventually Clinton had to use a recess appointment to get him to Luxemborg.

[chill_wind]

7. "Already done more for LGBT than *any* President" is a very common

proclamation on DU.

[dsc]

8. One other point

It isn't I who started this. Poster after poster here has decided that Obama has done more for gays than not just any single President, but all Presidents combined. So it seems that Clinton's whole record is being compared by them. But for the record, I left out a couple of major Clinton accomplishments precisely because they didn't happen in his first term.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[davidinalameda]

11. just tried to recommend this post

and the count is still at 0

I'm starting to think that the support Obama at all costs brigade doesn't want any posts critical of him making it to the best of page

[dsc]

15. People who unrecommend posts should have to publicly own that behavior

I rarely use that function but on the literal handful of times I have I stated as much. I suspect that there are people who unrecommend any post by a gay poster about gay rights but since that info isn't shared publicly I have no idea if I am right or not.

[ThomCat]

19. Yup. me too.

I just recommended this post, and it's still at 0.

The invisible unrec brigade is out in force.

[Starry Messenger]

22. Same here.

I guess this subforum really hates facts, despite its protests to the contrary on several occasions.

[QC]

30. Gay people are not qualified to speak on gay issues.

Only straight people can address those issues in a truly pragmatic, sensible way.

We're just too distraught over our ponies and little pet issues to have worthwhile opinions.

[Ignis]

102. That sums it up.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Bubba's anti-gay legislative legacy is what Pres. Obama is trying to repeal now via Congress. n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

29. This is a perfect example of

the disingenuous BS that is being pushed, claiming that Clinton was opposed to DOMA and was somehow courageous by signing it into law; that the country was so different that he had to do it. There was absolutely no chance of a Constitutional amendment passing.

Reality:

CLINTON DEFENDS ANTI-GAY ADS, WILL NOT PULL THEM

Poll Finds Americans Increasingly Support Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians

Angry Same-Sex Marriage Debate Had Little Impact on Elections
Washington, D.C. Nov. 12, 1996 --- Americans favor extending many of the components of legal marriage to gay men and lesbians, according to a poll released today by Greenberg Research Inc., commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign.

link

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

34. and this is different from Obama's behavior in regards to McClurkin, how

If it was wrong for Clinton to tout his signing of DOMA, and it was, then why wasn't it wrong for Obama to advertise a gospel show featuring McClurkin giving a 30 minute sermon about how gays can be changed. Clinton isn't at fault for the existance of DOMA (it passed with beyond veto proof margins on both houses) but he is to blame for trying to take credit for it. Similarly Obama isn't to blame for the existance of McClurkin but he sure is to blame for using him to get votes by pitting black voters against gay ones.

[ClarkUSA]

42. Yup. Let's repeat this FACT from 1996: "CLINTON DEFENDS ANTI-GAY ADS, WILL NOT PULL THEM"

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=430094&mesg_id=430287

That says it all, doesn't it? :puke:

[ProSense]

28. Bullshit

Significant accomplishments by the Obama administration include lifting the HIV travel ban was enacted more than two decades ago. Say whatever you want to, but Clinton's term ended in 2000.

In Historic Move, HHS Encourages LGBT-Inclusive Sexual Education

Also:

Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

Appointed the first transgender DNC member in history

Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees

Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders -- the nation's first ever -- funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAGE

Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability -- the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation's history

Named open transgender appointees (the first President ever to do so)

Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)

Appointed long-time equality champion Chai Feldblum one of the four Commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept our relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way, even if their state of residence does not yet permit legal marriage

Extended domestic violence protections to LGBT victims

Extended the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover employees taking unpaid leave to care for the children of same-sex partners

Issued guidance specifically to assist LGBT tenants denied housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity

Issued a National HIV/AIDS Strategy praised as "long-overdue" by the Task Force, Lambda and others

Successfully fought for UN accreditation of IGLHRC (the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission) -- against Republican attempts to block it

Source

[dsc]

32. You are wrong on several counts

the ban on HIV postive people was removed by Congress in 2008 while Bush was still President. It then took Obama over a year to actually impliment the policy. The heavy lifting here was done by a Democratic Congress not Obama. The Matthew Shepard Act wasn't the first pro gay leglislation in history. The Democratic Congress under Bush passed, and Bush signed, a bill which among other things, permitted gays certain pension rights. Signing the bill was a good thing but no it wasn't the first. I would also have to count the several AIDS bills which passed during Clintons years, including a ban on insurance companies discriminating against HIV, as gay victories though they weren't limited to gays (and neither was the Matthew Shepard, James Byrd bill). On the transgender employee issue, either banning that discrimination is a big deal or it isn't. If it is, then when Clinton did so for gays it was a big deal, if not, then it isn't a big deal that Obama did so for transgendered. I happen to think it is so Obama deserves credit for that. I will also conceed that doing so was about as difficut and maybe even more difficult, than doing so for gays was in 1993.

I give Obama great credit for three things. One was the hospital visitation presuming that it has teeth. Two is for the ending of transgendered discrimination. Three is his steadfast sticking by Kevin Jennings who he appointed safe school czar. Yes, those are great things and he deserves props for all three.

Frankly the rest of the list of accomplishments aren't that impressive. Either he didn't do the heavy lifting on them or in some cases it turns out they were just made up (the benefits thing). I don't think he deserves much credit for the Matthew Shepard bill for example. Congress passed it, without his showing any particular interest in them doing so, and on top of that he threated to veto the bill over funding for a plane. If, and this is a big if, DADT is repealed and replaced with a law permitting openly gay military personel, and/or ENDA passes thanks to Obama pressuring for it, I will revise my opinion of his record in this regard. Sadly, I don't think I will have to revise it anytime soon.

[NJmaverick]

35. No, Prosense nailed it correctly 100%

[dsc]

68. No he didn't

the fact is what I wrote in my post isn't opinion it is fact. I know that the Obama can do no wrong ever crowd, of which you are a charter member, don't like facts, but they are stubborn things.

[HughMoran]

104. She did.

She nailed it in HER post.

[ProSense]

40. Did Clinton remove it? As for your claim:

"Under Clinton AIDS funding, for prevention, research and treatment went through the roof."

Reality:



source

The President's 2011 budget includes $27.2 billion, up from $25.8 billion in 2010.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Yup, the OP is wrong. Pres. Obama is spending more on HIV/AIDS funding than Clinton ever did. n/t

[dsc]

51. In terms of per capita and constant dollars no way that is true

and that is the only way to honestly measure that.

[ProSense]

55. "Under Clinton AIDS funding, for prevention, research and treatment went through the roof. "

That statement from the OP is absolutely inaccurate.

[dsc]

63. No it isn't and I provided the figures to back it up in my post

btw using your own link discrestionary spending increased from 2.9 to 7.2 billion which is a 248 percent increase from 1993 (GHW Bush's last budget) to 2001 (Clinton's budget). After inflation it is a 205% increase. Clinton's last year was 14.4 billion (total spending) and Obama's in 2010 was $25.8 billion. In real terms that is 147% of what Clinton spent in his last year but a good deal of that increase came courtesy of Bush, who for all of his many, many faults was actually pretty good about AIDS funding. Incently your own link shows that too. In short Clinton increased AIDS funding by a much greater percent during his 8 years than Bush/Obama did in 10. Again, Bush actually did a pretty decent job increasing AIDS funding so it isn't that Obama had to make up for a horrible mess in this regard.

[ProSense]

69. Oh brother.

Talk about reaching.

Discretionary spending increased nearly 250 percent under Bush I.

You're claiming it increase 248 percent across Clinton's two terms.

By your logic Bush did as much as Clinton.

[dsc]

74. On AIDS funding he may well have

it is one of the very few things he did that was worth a damn. I didn't like his restrictions upon the funding but the funding itself was hard to quibble with. Bush, for whatever reason, did care about AIDS funding.

[ClarkUSA]

59. Prove it. Unlike ProSense, you have failed to provide any facts to back up your claims. n/t

[dsc]

66. actually I did

in a post that I posted in response to his, which as usual you chose not to read. What a shock that you refuse to read what I write and then tell dishonest tales about what I wrote.

[ClarkUSA]

70. No, you are making completely specious claims. For example...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=430094&mesg_id=430549

I am not the one who's dishonest. Your OP is an example of the type of unproven tripe that pervades DU.

[CBR]

33. ...

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

36. And the left beat the living shit out of Clinton too

So much so that we got 8 years of Bush.

Looking for a replay?

[dsc]

81. we got 8 years of Bush because of Nader who didn't give a damn about gay rights

so don't lay that at our feet. Clinton deserved to take grief from the left at times. Welfare reform was awful to name one very egregious example. We also got Bush because of a deeply disfunctional press which is no more gay people's fault than straights. Bruni was supposedly gay so he is our fault but none of the rest were gay.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[LiberalAndProud]

39. No politician has done enough. Nor is it likely that any politician will.

I am sure that DADT will go away. Although I disagree with the path Obama has taken, I am reasonably confident that it will be repealed by the end of this year.

The rest of it will be decided in court, and it will be a long fight.

[bigwillq]

41. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[Bluerthanblue]

46. if you can still make this claim after 8yrs of Obama, I'll

give you credit.

But your complaint rings pretty hollow at this point.

:shrug:

My state- the land of Mel Thompson and William Loeb, legalized Gay Marriage last year. AND Gov. Lynch signed the bill into law despite his statements that he personally 'opposes gay marriage'.
This is something that would have been unthinkable during the Bush years.

[dsc]

107. and something Obama had absolutely nothing to do with

Should I give Bush credit for Iowa's supreme court decison? It happened when he was in office after all.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. You post this nonsense as if Obama has served two full presidential terms. Jesus, you can't

even give the guy one full term yet before you spew this anti-Obama, pro-Clinton crap?!??!?!

[dsc]

53. have you even one time asked those who claim that Obama did

more for gays than every President combined to scale back their claim, if yes link to where you did, if no then why are you criticising me for using their standard.

[ProSense]

61. He has done more than any President

You claim Clinton did the most. Well, the reality is that President Obama has done more than Clinton.

Period.

[dsc]

79. coming for the man who says, and I quote, nothing changed for gays

from 1993 to 2009. And if you dare try to say you didn't say this, I will link to you doing exactly and precisely that and not taking it back when challenged. The fact is Obama just plain hasn't given the climate he is in vs the one Clinton was in, done as much as Clinton did.

[ProSense]

87. He's done much more

in two years, and will likely undo all the damage of the Clinton administration in his remaing time in office.

[dsc]

99. I doubt he will get anything else done at all for gays

he might, and I stress might, get DADT repealed but once we lose the House it will be all over for gays.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

139. "once we lose the House." You've already made this claim as if it rings true.

Instead of having these ridiculous debates about Obama v. Clinton, why don't you spend your time and get out there to work putting Dems back in office? Rather than reigniting these silly debates, why not do SOMETHING to ensure that Dems don't "lose the House"?

[dsc]

141. I don't have any endangered incumbents in my neck of the woods

I will be working for Marshall when the time comes for that work. As to your other point, I should have been more precise. Even losing some seats which is virtually certain will cost us the ability to pass pro gay legislation. I think we will lose between 20 and 50 seats and even 20 will make pro gay legislation a near impossibility. Add in losing the 5 Senate seats we are virtually certain to lose and it becomes a real uphill battle.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

134. Is that the point? The point is that he hasn't even had the time to do anything. Their ignorance is

just as bad as yours. He's hasn't been in office long enough to even make the comparison.

This discussion is asinine, ridiculous, and all it does is unnecessarily opens up primary wounds.

It's time for us Democrats to unite! We aren't the enemy. The Republicans are!

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[book_worm]

49. It's amazing how people will attack Obama on gay issues but applaud Clinton who gave us DOMA & DADT

to begin with.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

56. It is amazing how many post on gay issues with no apparent knowledge of them

DADT was forced on Clinton by Congress, it was either that, or no gays in the service at all, complete with witchhunts forcing gays out of the service. Read the book Conduct Unbecoming if you don't believe me. DOMA would have been law with or without Clinton. He did the wrong thing by exploiting the issue after he signed it, but we could have had Barney Frank in the Oval Office and we would have still had DOMA.

[ProSense]

58. Face it

you are simply making excuses for Clinton.

[dsc]

72. No I actually lived during the time and paid attention

unlike many here who quite apparently didn't.

[ProSense]

75. No,

you weren't the only one paying attention, but you're the one making excuses.

[LostinVA]

80. Without DOMA, we would have had a Constitutional Amendment

Against marriage equality. I was fired from a job during the same time period DOMA happened. Fired for being gay.

[dsc]

83. we might well have

though I don't know that for sure. I will say I would have been fired in a new york minute from my job had I been found out at the time (school teacher in MS).

[LostinVA]

101. I think a bit more of the propaganda they were spewing then would have done it

I rememberer, as I know you do, too, how rabid and public the gay hate was then.

[ProSense]

85. Absolutely not.

There were not 67 votes for a Constitutional amendment. That is bogus.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

105. Why, you don't like facts? n/t

[dsc]

106. You have no eartly idea if there were or if there weren't

and neither do I for that matter. I surely wouldn't have wanted to trust the Senate elected in 1994 not to have voted for that amendment. That Senate was 53/47 in favor of the GOP. So they would have needed to hold all their votes and gain 14 Democratic votes. Byrd, Ford, Hollings, Nunn, Bumpers, Pryor, Exon, Ben Knighthorse Campbell, Johnson, Breaux, and Helfin were all on our side of the aisle. That is eleven quite likely votes there. Now they need three more. Graham, Dorgan, Conrad, and Baucus are still left. They would need three of those four and hold all GOP or get all four and they can spare a GOP vote. Now I don't know what all of them would have done, but neither do you.

[ProSense]

118. "If Congress sends me the Defense of Marriage Act in the form now being considered, I will sign it."

Why do you oppose same-sex marriage? Is there a chance you could reconsider?
I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered. I also strongly believe that issues relating to gays and lesbians should not be used to tear our communities apart. Even on the most difficult social issues we face, we must work together to find common ground. Every American deserves no less.

What about the slate of proposed laws to limit marriage to individuals of the opposite sex? Should Congress establish a national standard for marriage?
I am opposed to same-sex marriage. If Congress sends me the Defense of Marriage Act in the form now being considered, I will sign it.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/824/824_clinton_710.asp">link

Doesn't sound remotely like opposition to me.

[dsc]

138. I didn't say he opposed it

nor do I even completely think his support of it was entirely to prevent a Constitutional amendment, but I do stand behind the notion that one very well could have passed if DOMA hadn't been passed. I would hope that some of the Dems I mentioned in that post would have been statesmen instead of politicians but I wouldn't bet my life on that notion. If DOMA prevented the amendment, and lets be blunt it would have easily gotten the states to ratify had it passed the Congress, then DOMA was a great thing. If it didn't it really sucked. Even if Clinton vetoed it it would have passed anyhow.

[CTLawGuy]

169. well if it could have passed

wouldn't it only have been because of Clinton's failure to use the bully pulpit to persuade Congress and the states not to pass it?

[CTLawGuy]

167. this excuse....

If the Republicans could have gotten a constitutional anti-marriage amendment they would have done so, DOMA or no DOMA. Even they know that laws are much more easily repealed than constitutional amendments. But constitutional amendments are hard to pass and I seriously doubt that they would have gotten enough votes.

[Lord Helmet]

173. it's revisionism/ here's a good explanation

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4887

[CTLawGuy]

176. thank you for that

article. very enlightening.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

89. That's just tired

"The heterosexual people you are arguing with here in this particular thread, by and large, care more about how Obama is perceived politically than about the day to day lives of gay people in America."

"They do not fully comprehend our second class status because they don't live it."

There are plenty of minorities and immigrants around who understand exactly what "second class status" is.

Everyone who cares about civil rights cares about progress towards equal rights.

[ruggerson]

91. the key word is "our"

Our second class status is unique to us, because heterosexual minorities and immigrants are not institutionally discriminated against because of their orientation.

Sorry if the truth hurts.

[ProSense]

92. The fight for equal rights is not

yours alone. It's simply wrong to try to claim that just because someone isn't gay, they cannot understand civil rights.

[ruggerson]

94. My post is about the gay rights movement specifically

as that is what this thread is about.

But then you knew that already.

[ProSense]

95. "that is what this thread is about." No

this thread is about making excuses for Clinton, who signed DADT and DOMA into law.

[ruggerson]

97. You're proving my point with every response

n/t

[ProSense]

103. How, because you say so?

First you said you didn't care who did more or less. Then you claimed that a thread titled, "Obama hasn't done more for gay rights than Clinton did" is about the gay rights movement.

The fact remains that Clinton signed DADT and DOMA. President Obama has set to sign the repeals, but it is on his agenda.

Still, in the face of significant progress in some areas for the LGBT community, people who defend Clinton cannot even acknowledge the facts.

[dsc]

109. You are so not the person to say that

Given the fact you directly stated, and stood behind, the notion that nothing has changed for gays between 1993 and 2009, you are about the last person to present herself as an example of a straight person who knows gay issues.

[ProSense]

110. I did no such thing. In fact,

there has been significant progress since 2009.

You are the one claiming that Clinton did more.

[dsc]

111. Oh really? I warned you not to deny you said this

I really did, and you went ahead and told that tale.

Here is you saying,exactly what I said you said

The country was in a much different place then."
Edited on Sat Aug-07-10 03:33 PM by ProSense
The country wasn't that much different. President Obama is being called a coward, but Bill Clinton is being excused for not being courageous enough to take a stand against DOMA. Kerry did, and he was up for re-election that year. The fact is that a few months ago Bill Clinton final decided to weigh in on repealing the law he signed in 1996. More than a decade has gone by, and no one has labeled Clinton anti-civil rights. No one has labeled Hillary Clinton anti-civil rights even though she has the same exact position on the issue as President Obama.

It was in response to this post

the enviroment was a lot different then
there was a real possibility, if not probability, of passing a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage (one banning flag burning lost by a single, solitary vote). I lived in MS at the time and frankly I called gays the great uniters. Black and white folk in MS who could agree on pretty much nothing else, agreed gays were moral scum who shouldn't marry. I think a whole lot of people either weren't around in 96 or are choosing not to remember what it was like in 96. Heck, in 1996 gays could be fired, simply for being gay in New York state and Illinios let alone places such as say PA and OH. We couldn't pass hate crimes in 98 or 99 in the aftermath of Matt Shepard being tortured to death for being gay. It is impossible to prove a negative, but I do think that we very well could have had a federal amendment but for that bill.

and here is the link to the thread containing the above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=400487#400659

I asked you not once, but twice in that thread to address what you wrote. You chose not to. You said it, now own it. I warned you not to do this and mods this shouldn't be removed as a call out since the poster directly denied something and I am merely backing up what I said she said.

[ProSense]

112. You "warned" me? What exactly did you prove?

You claimed: "Given the fact you directly stated, and stood behind, the notion that nothing has changed for gays between 1993 and 2009"

I made no claim that there has been no progress. You linked to the following statement, "The country wasn't that much different."

That has nothing to do with progess in terms of what Clinton or any other President has done.

The fact is that the country wasn't much different: Poll Finds Americans Increasingly Support Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians

You need to get your facts straight.

[dsc]

115. Oh please

you know what you said. You directy said that the climate in this country for gays wasn't all that different in 96 than it is now. It is an absurd statement and you said it. I don't blame you for wishing you said something else, but you said what you said, you stood behind it in real time, note you don't try the spin you are trying here in that thread. Again, I wouldn't like having said that either but you did, and no one made you do so. You clearly have no earthly clue about gay issues as that thread clearly demonstrated.

[ProSense]

116. What?

"You directy said that the climate in this country for gays wasn't all that different in 96 than it is now. It is an absurd statement and you said it."

The country wasn't much different: Poll Finds Americans Increasingly Support Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians.

What's absurd is your refusal to admit it.

[dsc]

133. fron your own link

support for DOMA was over 50%, support for ENDA was 55%. This link http://www.bilerico.com/2010/02/congress_and_the_public_dont_see_eye-to-eye_on_end.php

shows that ENDA support was 72% in 04 and is 89% in 09. That is a humungous increase. It also represents a vast change in an important region, the South and border region which controls nearly enough seats to filibuster legislation by itself. ENDA is nearly universally supported by Democratic Senate candidates in the Senate, something not the case in 96. It also reflects a vast change in north east Republicans who potentially control another 12. It is literally unimaginable for a north east republican to oppose ENDA, as D'Amoto and Sununu did in the 1990's. That alone makes ENDA passage a vastly simpler thing to do now, than it was in 96, when Clinton came within one vote.

[ProSense]

137. Wait,

is 55% a majority? Yes more people support it now, but the majority didn't oppose it then.

Support for DOMA at 50%? Is this your way of saying that Clinton didn't exercise leadership because half the country supported DOMA?

I suppose you'd understand President Obama refusing to support immigration reform based on polling?

The point is/was that using the mood of the country as an excuse for Clinton's support for DOMA is lame.

Should he consider the mood of the country before appealing the Arizona law?

[dsc]

143. No, I know you like to change the subject but I am not biting

the one and only subject here is "was the country in the same place relative to gay rights in 96 as it is now" and it clearly isn't from your own link. You can spin like a dreidel but the facts won't change. If we haven't learned anything in the last couple of years, we have learned that 55% support isn't enough of a majority to pass stuff in the Senate. The fact is that he came within one vote of passing ENDA in the Senate which was a miracle back then. Now I can't think of a single DEM who won't vote for ENDA except Nelson of NE. None of the major Democratic candidates for Senate don't back ENDA (I don't know about Greene of SC but he isn't major). Things have changed alot. You refuse to admit that because it makes it harder to defend Obama. That isn't my fault, it is yours.

[ProSense]

145. And no matter how much you try,

my saying "the country wasn't that much different" isn't the same as this: "was the country in the same place relative to gay rights in 96 as it is now"

"Wasn't much different" does not equal "same."

[dsc]

148. whatever

You prosense and Obama are perfection and never, ever wrong. Honestly just type whatever you want in response to this post and include your blue links. I really don't give a crap anymore.

[ProSense]

149. So, you can't

even admit that saying "the country wasn't that much different" isn't equivalent to saying it's in "the same place"?

"Honestly just type whatever you want in response to this post and include your blue links."

Curious, what color are your links?

[VMI Dem]

117. Are you a member of the GLBT community? Just curious.

[ProSense]

119. No

Do I have to be to have an opinon?

[VMI Dem]

120. What percentage of Americans do you think support civil rights for gay citizens?

[ProSense]

121. A majority.

Why?

[VMI Dem]

122. How do you square that with President Obama's homophobic stance on that subject?

[ProSense]

123. The President has his personal opinion and he doesn't let it get in the way of policy.

He will sign the repeal of DOMA.

I don't agree with his personal stance. What do you expect to gain from this bit of interrogation?

Does it change the fact that the OP is bogus?

[VMI Dem]

124. Would you expect a racist to treat other races fairly outside their "personal" life?

Say their workplace for example?

[ProSense]

125. Are you that clever?

You: "How do you square that with President Obama's homophobic stance on that subject?"

Do you believe it's hard to discern your opinion of the President from that statement?

[VMI Dem]

126. That was a hard one to answer. I understand.

Do you not feel that a person that opposes marriage for gay citizens is a homophobe?

[ProSense]

127. No, it wasn't hard.

It's hilarious, considering the title and purpose of this thread, and this.

Do you believe Clinton is a homophobe?

[VMI Dem]

128. I believe at one time his view on gay marriage made him one.

He has since evolved that view.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a homophobe?

[ProSense]

129. "Do you believe Barack Obama is a homophobe?" No, but

you do.

[VMI Dem]

130. Yes I do. Do you believe a person that opposes interracial marriage is a racist?

[ProSense]

131. You sure have a lot of questions. Answer one of mine for a change:

Is Obama a homophobe?

[VMI Dem]

132. You should read my last post.

[ClarkUSA]

136. Then Bill Clinton has been a homophobe. Ditto for Hillary, who's against gay marriage.

Right?

[dsc]

140. gee what a shock you still aren't reading posts

he said, in clear terms, that Clinton was a homophobe. And in point of fact I would agree with that as well. As to Hillary's current postion on marriage equality I don't know what it is, and am unsure how you are sure you do. She hasn't spoken on it one way or the other in well over a year during which time about 10% of the country changed its position on marriage equality.

[ClarkUSA]

142. I read enough. True, Hillary is as DLC as they come when it comes to equivocating & pandering...

... but since she has never been anything but anti-gay marriage on the campaign trail, there's no reason to think she has changed her mind. Unless Mark Penn told her it was politically advantageous to do so, of course.

[dsc]

144. so when posters like you tell us that Obama really doesn't believe

the crap he spouts on marriage and is likely to change his beliefs we shouldn't believe them? Which is it? Is it that he is likely to change his postion or is it that once positions like this are stated they are written in stone?

[ProSense]

146. What exactly are you arguing?

Clinton was a homophobe who did more than Obama who you believe is a homophobe?

Regardless of what they are or aren't, President Obama has done more than any other President.

[ClarkUSA]

147. "posters like you"? Just who are you referring to, dsc? What point are you trying to make?

Referencing your reply here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=430094&mesg_id=430753

That Pres. Clinton is a homophobe who did more than President Obama -- despite the fact that Pres. Clinton set back LGBT rights to such an extent that LGBT activists are clamoring for President Obama to reverse the homophobic legislative legacy that Bubba signed into law, namely DADT and DOMA?

[LostinVA]

93. +1

[QC]

90. +1

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[VMI Dem]

114. Off topic, but is your usernamesake Clinton sycophant Wes Clark?

:rofl:

[impik]

135. Clinton: 8 years. Obama: 20 months. That's all.

[muffin1]

152. That's not all.

Clinton 1992-2000. Obama 2008-present. Attitudes have changed a GREAT deal since Clinton was in office. Obama is way behind on this. Actually, he's to the right of Laura Bush, Meaghan McCain, Cindy McCain, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and DICK CHENEY. More repubs are seeing the light every single day.

[liberalpragmatist]

150. I'm generally an Obama defender, but his gay rights record is very disappointing

I understand he has a lot on his plate. I understand that he has another 2-6 years to go. But so far, he's been far too timid on these issues. There really is no reason he couldn't have come out in favor of gay marriage even in 2008 (it would have had no effect on the election that year, given the dynamics of the race). He almost certainly could have pushed to have ENDA passed in the early wave of '09 legislation. He could have suspended DADT via stop-loss orders.

Like I said, the record is still incomplete, and he may well do quite well in the end. But up to now, it hasn't been great.

[chill_wind]

153. dsc

a lot of late-comers to this thread probably don't realize this OP is, at least in part, a rebuttal discussion (at least that's how I interpreted) to some overly expansive claims like those here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x429544

and not simply as some stand alone tribute to Clinton that someone suggested. I wish more people would read that one to see where you're coming from.

And that they would actually read this part again of what your are saying here:

I am not saying Obama hasn't done anything. The hospital visitation piece, provided it comes with real teeth, is a big deal. Hate crimes isn't trivial. But the distance Clinton got the federal government to move on gay rights, from nowhere to somewhere was a huge deal. Given the massive change in attitudes toward gays, which neither Obama nor Clinton deserve much credit for, Obama got far less accomplished here than Clinton did in his era. In 1993, a majority of the public opposed gays in the military, barely favored ENDA, and supported hate crimes. Now 70% of the populace, and a majority of both conservative and Republicans support the elimination of DADT, ENDA, and hate crimes. Clinton was either fighting public opinion or facing a divided public. Obama faces a public that largely agrees with the major goals of the gay community. Obama was handed a much more gay friendly country in which to accomplish things for the gay community. The fact his list is, at best, barely better than Clinton's is frankly pretty depressing.

(Feel free to correct my reading of it.)

[ProSense]

157. So this thread is a rebuttal to another thread?

"Clinton was either fighting public opinion or facing a divided public. Obama was handed a much more gay friendly country in which to accomplish things for the gay community. "

Is it your and the OP's contention that President Obama should follow Clinton's lead and take the politically expedient way out based on public opinion?

CNN

CBS News Poll

Pew

PPP

Fortunately, President Obama has vowed to repeal DOMA, regardless of what the polls show.

Also, accept it or not, President Obama has accomplished more for the LGBT community than any other President.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

162. Okay then. Since this all comes down to not voting for Obama, then don't.

There's really nothing else to say about that.

[ruggerson]

163. I'll vote for Obama in 2012

largely because I'd rather have him appointing Supreme Court Justices than a Republican.

But this thread is beyond ridiculous. Not because of the argument over which President has done more for gay people, but because some folks think it's perfectly ok to argue with and berate gay people about gay political history.

[vaberella]

170. I agree with you. This entire thing is ridiculous.

Thanks for the comment ruggerson, I always appreciate what you have to say.

[IndianaGreen]

177. Obama was not the one that gave us DOMA and DADT

Got to give the man credit for that!