Can't we get her to get out of the race now and save those millions of campaign dollars for a candidate that isn't so sickening?

"Hillary Clinton Tries To Woo Voters By Rescinding Candidacy"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hillary_clinton_tries_to_woo

I wish more people who oppose homosexuality would take that stance. I don't care whether people think it's immoral or not, what I care about is if they try to inflict that belief on everyone else.

Granted, she's got that "lesbian cloud" hanging over her head (i.e. anything she says that is even remotely pro-gay will be considered proof positive in certain circles that she's a lesbian) But the only people who care about that are the far right (who hate her anyway) and gays, lesbians and progressive straights, whos votes she needs.

Why couldn't she have just said "I don't think that anyone group can be called intrinsicly immoral. That's for God to decide" (or something Christiany that would appeal to the saps in the middle)

And this is why I would be unenthusiastic about voting for her: She seems to lack the courage of her convictions, and she can't even come up with good political sound bytes.

Not to mention his campaign making a fund raising event out of his being called a faggot. Isn't that a bit cynical? He isn't sure that homos deserve consideration of full citizenship, but he'll sure take money from them when opportunity knocks.

The truly repulsive part of the responses to Pace are the people saying "we need all good Americans at this time of war." Fuck you! You needed them just as much 4 years ago at the start of this debacle, only you would never have said that at the time.

Now all you want is cannon fodder - and if it's more dead gay bodies, all the better.

This tactic is as old as the history of this asshole country. We are "all about" equality and liberty, but only if its not gonna harm the whitey pussy loving male xtian majority and - you don't get your piece until we are sure we need you.

Fuck all of them - Dem opportunists, Rep cocksuckers and military murderers.

Of course, she HAS made her honest stance quite clear here. Yay for gays and lesbians who do things that help us. Fuck all those lazy ones who do things with their free will that don't directly benefit the rest of the country. Double standard: straight people get automatic approval on grounds of sexuality, gays have to do something useful to even get a half-assed non-commital shrug of the shoulders.

Thanks, Hil, for granting us the right to exist so long as we serve you. I love my rights having addendums.

i.e. "amoral" because there's nothing you can do to change it.

the fact is, hillary is the one who, once elected, will get the most done. at least she was at the damn hrc dinner.

Even staunch supporters of the military, including Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized General Pace for his statements.

“I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral,” Senator Warner said Tuesday.

Can't Hillary at least match that statement?

I'll vote for HRC in 2008, but Jesus, I won't be happy about it, and I don't know anyone else who will either.

The right answer is that, as far as running the government is concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is immoral. Gambling, prostitution, and working for less than the minimum wage may be immoral, but they are consensual activities and the government has no business prohibiting them. Gay sex falls into the same category.

Fixed your typo, Mike in MO!

But oh, hold on, Dennis Kucinich is totally unelectable-- because he's a moral candidate and doesn't pander enough.

But let's all take a moment to get down on Hillary for pandering. Because we want a Republican to win in 2008.

But yeah, im damn sick of wishwashy hilary too, shes just John Kerry with ovaries and giant ankles. It would be nice if there were a democrat who could just cut the bullshit for this. After all, for all the afraid conservatives they would loose they would make up with liberals who would like to see LGBTQ's treated with, oh I don't know, the same level of respect as everyone else.

Evangelicals and Conservatives do not rule the worlds, why cant our politicians realize that? What worked for the republicans does not always work for democrats. Play to your base a little more rather than trying to hide it and be "moderate", it worked for Shrub.

My 2 cents. What do I know, im just some jackass sitting at his computer in the middle of the afternoon between classes so I'm probably full of shit.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/113236/176

Yawn.

The specific legislation mentioned in the article Kos cites passed by substantial margins in the House and Senate. Not to say Kucinich doesn't support those bills in principle; he's clearly still a Catholic at heart. But his position on the matter was hardly pivotal and it's possible that he would have voted differently if his vote had actually mattered.

The rest of Kos's criticisms are basically stylistic. And that bit about him being, supposedly, the seventh worst mayor in US history basically comes down to what I initially said about him-- he doesn't pander enough.

Which is not the same as "not at all."

LOL -- Hillary Clinton's subliminal message in the sign behind her as she gives a speech about republicans.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/332/hillaryai0.jpg

Credit to WTF Is It Now?

http://maruthecrankpot.blogspot.com/

There's nothing inherrantly moral about being gay. Shit, you can be gay and still have wanted to go to war, have thought Bush was super swell, have demonized any liberal who was right about the war for several years. Can still have not taken back the accusation that lefties from the coasts would commit treason for Bin Laden. You know what despite Sully's conversion on the war, eventually and sort of, he's still pretty immoral. He can still love The Bell Curve and still be a racist shit.

So yeah, she should say more, I guess. But on the other hand, she doesn't get to decide morallity for other people. I honestly can't understand why what she says is more important than the policy she'll promote.

And those 50% will NEVER vote for Hillary. EVER. Hillary is, like her husband was in the 90's, obsessed with kissing up to those who will never work with him unless they benefit.

This is the type of caving and equivocating that decimated the Democratic Party in the 90's.

*Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone.*

What policy will she promote? If Iraq is any guide she'll promote ALL the sides. For the war and against the war, at the same time!

Do you honestly believe that if elected she'd get rid of don't ask don't tell? Not a chance in hell.

The spam filter ate my last post, but a quick re-stating: She's got good ratings from the HRC all three years: 88%, 89% and 100%, the same as or better than Obama or Edwards in each case. She co-sponsored hate crime legislation that includes sexual orientation. She has a pretty liberal rating via Progressive Punch and most other ways you count votes. Ultimately, she'll run into the same problem that Bill did trying to get gays in the military: Congress. I don't know if they can be moved to support it, but they are necessary.

"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."

And I just want to say, Hillary has failed her two litmus tests for the White House, she voted to authorize GEORGE BUSH of all people to go to war (while other Senators like Sen Feingold did not vote for it) and now she will not decide what is moral or not. Two strikes lady and you should drop out of the race. Pure and simple.

One other thing, the Republicans WILL be sure to make a call on what is moral or not moral. Hell, they do it all the time no matter how wrong they are. But they DO make those calls and apparently Americans like that.

I do not ask much from the Democrats in all honesty. I am only 35 years old and have never lived under an honest to God liberal President. (I refuse to call Carter or Clinton true honest to God fire breathing liberals) But I expect any Democrat to engage in the issues of the day 100% and take a stand. A CLEAR BOLD STAND! Yeah, I expect them to take up moral leadership for Liberal Morals! And Hillary, part of the job of being the President is to take MORAL Leadership. And guess what saying that homosexuality is an issue you are not going to say is immoral or not is taking a moral position. A really weak and cowardly moral poisition. I am tired of having today's Dems sell out gays and lesbians or the environment or anything else so as not to avoid people. It makes me think they really do not believe in the values most Democrats believe in.

She could have come right out and said, "Personally, could give a shit about what anyone has to say - good or bad - about homos." If she gets the nomination you will stop criticizing her after February 2008...and you will all vote for her in November that year.

It is a two party system, right? Lemmings only follow the ass in front of them...

i.e. "i'm sorry for my iraq vote." she'll be crucified if she says that now, because she's always stood behind her vote. she's not going to just come out and change her statement because it would be popular to do so. of course she wishes iraq had gone differently. of course she thinks it's a colossal failure. but saying that doesn't get the country anywhere. focusing on a plan to fix it is far more important, so why should she waste her time and ours by pandering to people who are bound and determined to find something about her to not like.

i.e. "i won't say homosexuality is not immoral." of course she doesn't think that. but she has a campaign to run. sometimes, in politics, you have to not say things you believe in, in order to get into office and get your agenda in place. that doesn't make you a shmuck, it makes you a pragmatist who knows that, if you want to change the way things are, you have to convince everyone that you can do that. and sometimes that means dodging questions.

whether or not she apologizes for her iraq vote, i still believe she's the most capable, knowledgable person in the race to fix this raging disaster. whether or not she thinks homosexuality is immoral, what's important is that she supports our rights to exist, to love our partners, to serve in the military, and to enjoy equal rights.

let's focus on what really matters, rather than some buzz issue b.s.

I'm not defending Hillary. I have no idea what her position is. But there is value in silence at the right moments, even in politics. Actions speak louder and truer than words, sometimes.