Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Sims Endorses Clinton

1

Do you have, um, 'issues' with that?

Posted by RonK, Seattle | September 4, 2007 11:32 AM
2

And who says that a black man can not get behind a republican? Opps, did I say that out loud?

Posted by Just Me | September 4, 2007 11:35 AM
3

I don't get the "Obama (loved by former Deaniacs)". Says who? This is a blog, so give us a link! Otherwise, I don't believe it for a minute.

Posted by deaniac | September 4, 2007 11:44 AM
4

One word: Viability. Some leaders really just look to that as an endorsement measure so it could be that Sims considers Clinton to be most viable as a candidate and thus has earned his support.

Posted by la | September 4, 2007 11:45 AM
5

Black Democrats might be supporting Clinton but she still has to win over women Democrats.

It is intersting that Obama is having issues winning over blacks and Hillary is having issues winning over women. What does that say?

Posted by Bet YourAss | September 4, 2007 11:50 AM
6

That would be "Obama (loved by some former Deaniacs)".

Count me out ... my love is being saved for Al. If, as I expect, he demurs, I'll reassess. Obama's in the mix, but so are a few others (Hillary isn't one of them).

Posted by N in Seattle | September 4, 2007 12:01 PM
7

Why wouldn't black Democrats back Clinton? She was married to the first black president.

Posted by Gitai | September 4, 2007 12:14 PM
8

You saw that hilarious Chris Rock bit on Saturday Night Live about black man vs white women? "...the only people that don't love white women, are white women!"

Women are notoriously hard on other women. I think it's part "scarcity" complex (not enough positions of power/respect to go around, if she gets ahead, I won't) and part "it has to be perfect" syndrome. We've waited so long whoever is the first woman president has to embody ALL of our feminist ideals. Can anyone meet those expectations?

Posted by watcher | September 4, 2007 2:56 PM
9

I say let Ron go to DC. If he's supporting Hillary, I think that takes a feather out of his cap as a "supporter" for LGBT rights as we've already seen what support from Clinton #1 got us: DOMA and DADT. I probably could stomach the DADT as a stopgap measure, but the DOMA signing from Bill (and support from US Sen Murray on it as well) makes me puke to this day.

It's not a woman thing. 2 things put me in the camp of anyone in the Dems but Hillary: 1) This country needs a change in direction that you won't get by putting a Clinton back in the WH and 2) I think I trust her about as much as Mitt Romney on any LGBT issue.

Posted by Dave Coffman | September 4, 2007 3:59 PM
10

Dave Coffman @9: "we've already seen what support from Clinton #1 got us:"

Funny, the most striking thing I remember about Bill Clinton and gay rights was during the debate with Bob Dole.

Question: "...can you please explain your policy on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act that would have... prohibited people from being fired from their jobs simply for being gay or lesbian."

It was the first time gay rights had been raised in a presidential debate. The room went dead silent. You could here a pin drop.

Clinton: "I'm for it. That's my policy. I'm for it."

Fuck yeah, baby!!!

As for DADT, that was progress, given that homosexuality had previously been banned outright from the military. History will show it to be a stepping stone towards outright acceptance.

And DOMA? Fighting it was a lost cause since Congress had the votes to override the veto. So Clinton made a toothless symbolic gesture to keep the center from fleeing rightward.

Personally, I'd rather have a pragmatic and shrewd politician on my side than a hapless idealist.

Posted by Sean | September 4, 2007 11:27 PM

Comments Closed

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