Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Clinton and Obama

1
Posted by Will | March 15, 2007 9:02 AM
2

Dan, can we just find Gore, kidnap him and force/beg/coerce him to run for the White House? Seriously, Clinton makes me ill with how much she plays politics with everything that drips out of her mouth and now Obama is giving me pause.

Posted by Andrew | March 15, 2007 9:05 AM
3

Richardson! Write a check to Richardson! The parallels to Bill Clinton are outstanding. Governor of a shitty little state that he turns around. Likes the french fries a little too much. Comes out of nowhere to challenge the established leaders. In addition, he's got a better resume and the worst scandal in all his years as governor is that he got caught speeding.

Posted by Gitai | March 15, 2007 9:06 AM
4

C'mon, Gitai, New Mexico is no shitty little state like Arkansas. Although I'm sure Richardson turned it around. However, if he had anything to do with selling that Chinese scientist (can't remember his name) at Los Alamos down the river, I can't support him.

Posted by Matt from Denver | March 15, 2007 9:25 AM
5

Matt, please enjoy my douche juice.

Posted by sniggles | March 15, 2007 9:32 AM
6

This just goes to show that there is no inherent reason to vote Democrat just because you're gay.

Posted by Proud Gay Republican | March 15, 2007 9:34 AM
7

Mmmmmmm....douche juice.....

Posted by Matt from Denver | March 15, 2007 9:38 AM
8

And even less of a reason to vote for a republican.

Posted by monkey | March 15, 2007 9:38 AM
9

Yeah my checkbook just closed a bit tighter as well. Maybe Barack will have some extra coins in his pocket since he quit smoking. As for Hillary, she needs to smoke more and loosen the fuck up.

Posted by Dave Coffman | March 15, 2007 9:42 AM
10

Even if they're both doing damage control, it seems to be 'too little, too late' for me. Just the fact that their first impulse was to hem and haw and think 'how can I get around answering this? how many votes will I lose for speaking my mind?' is really awful. Apparently they're only wililng to speak their mind through indirect press releases. Clinton has always been that way, but it's disappointing to see Obama do that. Here's to hoping that he will say, in front of a camera, that homosexuality is not immoral.

Posted by Gabriel | March 15, 2007 9:43 AM
11

oh, dan. seriously? you are a smart man. surely you understand that it would be political suicide for either clinton or obama to make statements other than the "damage control" you link to here.

can we remember what happened in the last presidential election before tarring and feathering the dems? do we really want a 2008 map that shows blue coasts and an unsightly spread of red across the rest of the country?

it's already an uphill battle. clinton (holy shit, she's a WOMAN!) and obama (jesus christ, he's BLACK!) both need to play it safe and focus on buiding their bases. neither agreed with the offensive statement. that's the best we can hope for right now.

you know damn well that either of them will be far more effective with regard to human rights than any republican candidate will. smart political strategy is imperative right now.

Posted by kerri harrop | March 15, 2007 9:46 AM
12

I wonder if straight talk isn't smarter though, Kerri. Seems to me that middle America is so sick of bullshit, they'll vote for a gay atheist if said atheist would just LEVEL WITH THEM.

You're right, of course (though how would you know?), that gays should de-prioritize themselves to an extent when it is politcally prudent, but I think that speaking politically when everyone knows what you Really Mean just makes you look like you're full of shit.

Posted by sniggles | March 15, 2007 9:57 AM
13

J'accuse indeed!

When did Dan Savage turn into a overly-sensitive bomb-thrower? Did he forget to take your monster bong hit? Obama told the top general to shut the fuck up. That's not bad.

Posted by chris | March 15, 2007 9:57 AM
14

I mean, the guy just said he wants gays in the military. Sheesh.

Posted by chris | March 15, 2007 9:58 AM
15

Dan Savage can have my monster bong hit when he pries it from my cold, dead hands.

Posted by Mary Acatreu | March 15, 2007 9:59 AM
16

I'm not writing a check for any of these people until after the primaries are over. The primaries are going to be over eventually, right? I'd vote for a chimp over any Republican. I do like Richardson, though.

On the other side, it's going to be fun watching the Republicans tear each other apart. Now they're going after Rudy's fuckdoll, er, wife. Mitt loved the homos before his advisors told him not to. McCain's like a bomb with a wet fuse -- is it lit? Is it going to go off?

Posted by Fnarf | March 15, 2007 10:17 AM
17

Agree with @12. This is not smart politics, it's politics as usual, and people are sick of it. The 2006 elections weren't a win for the Dems, they were a loss for the Republicans because people are tired of their dissembling bullshit. The smart political move now is to FUCKING BE REAL. It's been shown over and over that people respond to politicians who at least SEEM to be honest and on the level, even if they disagree with their politics. Trying to make everyone happy and piss off no one pisses off EVERYONE.

Obama and Clinton are fucking up.

Posted by Tone | March 15, 2007 10:19 AM
18

Hillary's track record shows that she is a friend of the homos. Pulling your support away from her because she said something politiciany is counterintuitive in the end. The truth is that Hillary supports full marriage rights of gays and wants to eliminate the "don't ask don't tell" policy from the military. She's a politician, she has to play the game or she won't win. People who refuse to play the game don't win, and then we get fucked because we were too righteous to support someone who had to dance a little bit for the dummies on their way to the oval office. The right wing plays the game, and we need players in there too. Don't hate the player.

Posted by Carollani | March 15, 2007 10:22 AM
19

The NYT article unfairly fails to mention that John Edwards, alone among the top Dem candidates, did not dodge the question; he unequivocably responded that homosex is not immoral or a sin.

Posted by DrewVSea | March 15, 2007 10:35 AM
20

Doesn't Richardson have some sexual harassment baggage? Am I misremembering?

Posted by Gabriel | March 15, 2007 10:38 AM
21

@18: The game does need to be played, I agree. But this should be a non-issue for Democrats and any presidential candidate.

The problem here is that Hillary played the game badly. This should have been a softball for her and she botched it. So did Obama. I think both of them are probably pretty gay friendly.

What may be of relevance is why they botched it. Gay people are a part of society. Pace's comments made it seem as though they are, but as second class citizens. Pace came off as a bigot.

Instead of taking the reins and keeping the focus on Pace, the focus is on the Dems as to why two top prez candidates botched, and the did damage control over an issue that is a non-issue within the Democratic party. This wasn't Pace's doing- it was self inflicted by Clinton and Obama themselves. That only helps the republicans and enforces many people's view (particularly swing voters) that the Dems don't have their shit together. That's the real problem with this entire affair.

Posted by Dave Coffman | March 15, 2007 10:38 AM
22

I totally agree with you. They handled the situation poorly and now they're in the spotlight for the wrong things. I just think this is being blown out of proportion. If we weren't so sensitive and easily riled up then maybe the media couldn't use these kinds of silly tricks on us. Let's keep a level head.

Posted by Carollani | March 15, 2007 10:49 AM
23

Edwards doesn't believe homosexuality is immoral. Send him a check. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/15/102241/982

Posted by lorax | March 15, 2007 11:05 AM
24

who cares if it's "immmoral" or otherwise? some people think getting drunk is immoral but are okay with the sale of alcohol. people have the ability to recognize different people have differing systems of morality but that the legal system needs to accomodate all people. it would be better for dems and reps alike if this position was adopted.

Posted by infrequent | March 15, 2007 11:38 AM
25

in other words, clinton wasn't so far off the mark.

do YOU think it is immoral?

is a different question from

is it immoral?

which is a different question still from

should gay marrige be legal?

in a very logical way, Clinton is correct. other people will decide. each person in this country can decide if they think it is a sin or not. just like drinking. lying. playing baseball on sundays or saturdays. etc... etc... etc...

we choose when to legislate morality, and when not to. in this case, the morality is determined by individuals, and we should choose not to legislate this particular morality.

Posted by infrequent | March 15, 2007 11:42 AM
26

i fucking love the gays. send ME a check!

Posted by adrian! | March 15, 2007 12:03 PM
27

Shit, if you can come out and be for a woman's right to choose, and say that you think homosexuality part of nature as opposed to a choice, then you should have the balls to say homosexuality is not immoral.

We know Hillary and Obama are pro-choice, but has anyone asked them if abortion is immoral? I'd like to see their answers.

I'll vote for whichever Democrat gets nominated, but right now, if he will still be running, Richardson will get my vot.

Posted by elswinger | March 15, 2007 12:09 PM
28

I agree with 12 and 17 above. If the Dems want to truly create a shift away from the last several years, they need to give up on this staying safe/calculation/Third Way thing, and start staking out some real positions. Part of what I can't stand about Clinton is this tendency towards calculation that makes her continually come off stiff and overly-image-conscious, similar to Gore in 2000; and like many others, seeing Obama fall into the same trap is really disheartening as well. People claim that Clinton and Obama will lose this or that constituency's vote or that it will be "political suicide" if they make a firm statement one way or another, but my sense is that those folks would choose not to vote for them would likely be replaced by other folks--who likely don't vote now--who would be energized and inspired by straight talk and clear positions. The Election Day results of 2006 were not the result of the Dems being forceful, but because the GOP has fucked up so much, in so many different ways, that they lost some conservative votes. Now is not the time to be cautious, but to truly try and shift things. I think Dems need to ask ourselves as voters, what does it mean that our front-runners are continually sounding worse than those given less support? Why do we keep having to hold our noses while we pull the lever? Why do we keep having to make apologies for these people? Why do we elect people who are afraid to be clear and honest about what they stand for?

Posted by bookworm | March 15, 2007 12:13 PM
29

#28: If every voter in America decided to vote for the most honest politicians that represented their interests then there would be more honest politicians, but until that massive consensus occurs the change will have to come from the inside of the system. That's why we need to elect and support those willing to DO things in our best interest despite whatever smarmy and evasive language they use to get there.

That kind of idealism is the kind that throws away votes on a Nader and gets a Bush elected.

Posted by Carollani | March 15, 2007 12:47 PM
30

Yeah, I was bummed that Barack Hussein seems to be falling into the "don't wanna lose the church vote" trap. Has anyone axed Richardson what is his take on this?

Also, I admire Edwards for a variety of reasons, but he is just a little too lawyer-ish for my taste. I know that is a piss-poor reason to write someone off.

That said, ANY of the above would be better than the JOs from the right. Obviously...

Posted by Mike in MO | March 15, 2007 1:23 PM
31

It's just not true that "if you don't play the game, you don't win." That's loser talk. Winners don't play the game, they invent the game. The Republicans win not because they do everything by the rules, but precisely because they don't give a shit about the rules. They, of course, break the rules in an evil way. Dems could win by breaking the rules in a good way.

The Dems always look like they're just following along when they do this crap, twisting every way the wind blows. George Bush has said many horrible things, things that millions and millions of people think are positively evil and ignorant and scary, but he says them with conviction, he doesn't back down, and he wins.

Posted by Tone | March 15, 2007 1:28 PM
32

Matt, I grew up in Roswell, so trust me when I say that New Mexico is indeed a shitty little state like Arkansas. They were having a debate a few years ago about changing the state motto, and one legislator said it should be changed to "Thank God for Mississippi," because it's the one state that consistently beats New Mexico for dead last in all the good things and number one in all the bad things. There's a reason I moved far, far away from there.

Posted by Gitai | March 15, 2007 2:33 PM
33

Goodness knows I'm fickle, but Hillary and Obama may well have lost me irrepairably with these two missteps. I simply can't hold my nose to vote for someone who isn't honestly working to end my 2nd class citizenship.

A day later they pass out a few crumbs as damage control. Yeah, thanks.

Posted by adamblast | March 15, 2007 3:19 PM
34

They certainly didn't articulate it clearly, but they alluded to the important point that "sin" (or even clearly religiously charged "immorality") should Not be up for public debate. I'm a liberal Christian, way pro the gays, and it sickens me that we're discussing deeply personal and subjective matters on the natural political stage. Liberals implicitly accept, even endorse, the terms of an outrageous argument (that sin is a public matter) and consequently perpetuate it. If I were running for office, I'd refuse to answer too, and I'd explain why.

Posted by Lys | March 15, 2007 4:25 PM
35

And Obama is off my list too.

My list is totally fictional, I'm not even American. But I talk anyway!

I think the "play the game" attitude needs to be looked at, as well as this idea of as long as they respect our rights, they can hate us all they want thing.

Maybe you can say that to the everyday man or woman; in fact, you pretty much have to. But we're looking for a leader, and that is entirely different. Would an (openly) racist person be fit to run the country, so long as they didn't shit on black people? And, assuming they didn't rig Florida, of course. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils - go for who is going to respect your rights most.

However, being the lesser of two evils does not mean that person is okay. The truth is Barack and Clinton have both shown their principles are piss; they won't even clearly state them. Vote for the best one, sure, what else can you do? But it doesn't mean they are good enough. It doesn't mean someone else - someone who could honestly say they didn't think homosexuality was immoral - would be better. Attitudes DO matter, when you're picking a leader.

Posted by Rebecca | March 15, 2007 4:41 PM
36

i love that gore is cool now.

Posted by Chase | March 15, 2007 5:18 PM
37

I'll send WILLIAM HUNG a check rather than a female Clinton or a Black Obama!

a perfect desicion considering Hung is Asian, and his 'unbelieveable' American Idols 'She Bangs' was so GAY!

Posted by Condoleezious Rice | March 15, 2007 8:44 PM
38

I'm still holding out hope for an Edwards/Gore or Gore/Edwards ticket.

Posted by shea | March 20, 2007 12:52 PM
39

GOod site

Posted by teeniee121921 | March 26, 2007 5:58 AM
40

GOod site

Posted by teeniee121921 | March 26, 2007 5:58 AM
41

GOod site

Posted by teeniee121921 | March 26, 2007 5:58 AM
42

Good site

Posted by camgirls43141 | March 26, 2007 10:29 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).