Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Patty Murray About to Endorse? | Ouch »

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Hillary on Gay Teens

posted by on January 29 at 9:52 AM

John at Americablog gives Hillary credit for answering a question she could easily have avoided. But I have a couple of follow-up questions: Hillary says she’s done a lot of work on this issue in New York state. Can we get some specifics on that? And it’s pretty easy, these days, to say that you “support” depressed, suicidal gay teenagers. We’re all against depression and suicide. But what about gay teenagers that want something more out of life than just being not depressed or not suicidal? What about gay teenagers that want to enlist or get married, Mrs. Clinton? Where’s the support for them?

RSS icon Comments


As you know Dan, speaking up for civil equality for Gay citizens is still a poison pill for all Presidential candidates.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | January 29, 2008 9:59 AM

You should only be allowed to marry from now on if you're going to have kids. Gay or straight. If you get divorced, your kids must die.

I like my logic. I call it awesome.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 29, 2008 10:00 AM

She'll toss us under the bus, just like Bill.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | January 29, 2008 10:01 AM

Hmmm. Gay teenagers. Enlist. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 29, 2008 10:03 AM

@3 you mean like Obama who campaigns with homophobe assholes? Though I am not a single issue voter, I have to say that Hillary is the gay friendly candidate of the two, even though we are an insignificant voting bloc. Let the Slog Hillary-bashers begin. However, as an undecided liberal voter, I see Obama's politics and campaign becoming more and more repulsive as the race continues.
Dan, why don't you do a little research on Clinton's work with gay teens in New York. You seem to doubt everything she says without researching first, but I wonder if you would have made the same qualifier if it had been Obama, who most definitely not done shit for gays, teen or otherwise. Please people, research everything! Don't take their word for it. Get thee to a library and get the facts! Email or call a librarian if you need help getting information, but make your vote informed damn it!

Posted by Whatever | January 29, 2008 10:10 AM

I too would like to see the work she's done on the subject. Work, like what? Sitting in her office concentrating really hard, or actually writing bills, actually doing specific favors for constituents who've asked for them? Ideally something a little stronger than a bullet point on a PowerPoint slide.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 10:10 AM

"We value you. We value you as a person, you as a total person (unless you want to get married, serve openly in the military, visit your dying partner in the hospital, not have your funeral picketed by hateful nutjobs, etc.)."

Real clear message, Hill.

Posted by sorryroger | January 29, 2008 10:12 AM

Ugh, Sadly though Obama's record is as dismal on gay rights as is Hillary's. We are screwed no matter who wins in November. The only difference is the Democrats will at least use lube and hopeully remember the rubber.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 29, 2008 10:16 AM

@5 Where in my post did I mention Obama?

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | January 29, 2008 10:17 AM

it's more than the outwardly and publicly homophobic obama campaign would say.

i am a single issue voter when it comes to gay rights, and she is far and away, better and more compassionate on gay and lesbian issues. also because she is female, she will have more of an idea of how sexual discrimination is doubly hard on lesbians, and, i believe, be more open to solving problems her husband created.

but obama and his christianist ass can burn in hell as far as i'm concerned, i might just stay home election day if he's nominated. i can see him keeping the "faith based initiatives" office in the white house and hiring on Donnie McCLurkin as its head.

from salon:

But his gay critics are right to ask why he thinks getting homosexuals to sit at the same table with antigay and allegedly "ex-gay" Christians represents some kind of balance. Had McClurkin been a Holocaust denier, my money says Obama would be "embracing a change" in his tour's entertainment lineup, lickety-split.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Obama is playing to both sides -- that seems to be what he's best at. He means well, but you know what they say about the highways in hell.

was there more to her answer? it seemed to cut her off after a minute and a half, maybe she said more.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 10:19 AM

You don't see it, Mark? It's right there. Where you didn't say it.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 29, 2008 10:21 AM

As Mr. Bighorn put it @1 we're still a "poison pill". That's the problem. The rest of it is just quibbling over style, in my inflated opinion...

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | January 29, 2008 10:29 AM

The hatred coming from both the Obama & Clinton camps over the last couple of weeks is very sad.

Anyway #5 & #11, FWIW, I posted these a couple of days ago:

#11, “…. My family says that he and his wife were very direct in discussing gays during numerous meetings and rallies at black churches in SC. I can't think of a better way to address the homophobic issue in the black community. A black man who "preaches" to one of his communities (he is half white) about their hatred for gays. So, even if he doesn't get the nomination, he is helping to stop the GOP from using gays as a wedge issue. ...BTW, I'm an out and proud African American.”
Posted by Tony | January 27, 2008 3:05 PM

#72: transcript:
Posted by Tony | January 28, 2008 8:06 AM

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 10:31 AM

@4 - Enlisting is not a great idea right now, but that does not mean it should not be an option. Many people cite leaving their hometown as a reason for enlisting. It is also one way to start a life of financial independence. Why should it not be an option for everyone?

Posted by Dot | January 29, 2008 10:34 AM

Also, in Obama's speech yesterday at American University, when he talked about getting rid of the things that divide us and come together, he said "gays and straights." You can probably find it on YouTube.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 10:34 AM

I take a lot of flak here for being pro-Hillary, but the fact remains that, once you get past the enormous blow-job Obummer's laying down, Hilly's really the one who cares the most about the issues we care the most about. Get past the smoke and mirrors, folks.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 29, 2008 10:36 AM

As opposed to Sen. Obama who is openly advocating separate and unequal relationships for us queers...

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."


Posted by Jonathan | January 29, 2008 10:45 AM

As opposed to Sen. Obama who is openly advocating separate and unequal relationships for us queers...

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."


Posted by Jonathan | January 29, 2008 10:46 AM

whatever, your memory is pretty short if all you can do is get angry about Donnie McClurkin. Remember "Don't ask don't tell??" How about the Defense of Marriage act and the advertisements that the Clintons took out on southern Christian radio stations touting Bill Clinton's signing of DOMA. Why do you assume that Hillary is any less bigoted, any less opportunistic, and any less willing to throw gays under the bus than her husband is?

As far as positions go you should get yourself to a public library or search around the internet. You could see that even when she was in San Francisco two years ago campaigning for Phil Angelides that she refused to answer questions about gay marriage. If she's not going to take a stand when she's standing next to Gavin Newsom then when is she?

A little of the research that you're recommending that Dan undertake would show that Clinton and Obama have virtually indistinguishable positions on gay marriage. They're both against it but in favor of "civil unions". Both are against a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

Oh, and if you're going to condemn Obama for having Donnie McClurkin on stage then you should also perhaps read the speech he gave at Ebenezer Baptist Church on MLK day, especially this part:

For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

Here's Barack Obama going into a black church on MLK day and condemning racism, anti-semitism and homophobia within the black community. Compare and contrast the willingness to take that position in that place and at that time with Hillary Clinton's unwillingness to even answer questions about same-sex marriage when she was in San Francisco and standing next to Gavin Newsom, who legalized same sex marriage within the city, and Phil Angelides, who said that he would sign the marriage equality bill that Schwarzenegger had vetoed.

Anyone who is willing to do the research, which apparently whatever and lineout fan aren't, should have some serious doubts about Hillary's commitment to gay equality or for that matter to Hillary's commitment to anything but her becoming president in 2008.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 29, 2008 10:55 AM

For what it's worth, Obama's church, the only one he has ever belonged to, was first to ordain a gay man, or so I read recently.

Here's an article from Queerty about his speech at Ebeneezer Baptist on MLK Day.

Posted by Vanessa | January 29, 2008 11:01 AM

Of course, the Catholic church has been ordaining gay men for centuries. Don't ask don't tell!

Don't stone me.

Posted by Vanessa | January 29, 2008 11:05 AM

Hey Jonathon, nice link in the double post (Please click Post only once). Intellectual honesty would compel you to reveal that on the issue of same-sex marriage Clinton and Obama have positions that are virtually indistinguishable. Both of them are against it but favor the civil unions that you condemn Obama for advocating. Here's a link that summarizes Hillary's position. Money quote:

Clinton also stuck firm to her opposition to same-sex marriage. Asked what's at the heart of her opposition, she replied, "It's a personal position."

The Democratic front-runner came under tough questioning from musician Melissa Etheridge, one of the panelists, who said President Bill Clinton had disappointed gay activists. "Our hearts were broken. We were thrown under the bus," Etheridge said.

Clinton defended the progress made on gay rights during her husband's administration, while adding, "We certainly didn't get as much done as I would have liked."

Moments later, when Etheridge urged Clinton to be a leader now, she replied, "Well, I think - I think I am a - I think I am a leader now."

I'd really like to know what is at the heart of Clinton's "personal position" on same sex marriage. Is it bigotry, or just political opportunism?

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 29, 2008 11:06 AM

Right on, wile_e_coyote. Obama has spoken out forcefully in favor of gay rights to potentially hostile audiences. Clinton's never done anything remotely similar. The Clintonistas above are suggesting he will hire Donnie Durkin in the White House. Who sounds like they're in touch with reality here?

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 11:08 AM

Mark---did not mean to imply that you had said something Obama, I was simply using your comment as a springboard to a larger issue.
Jonathon---okay, I'll call bullshit. Even Bush has given speeches asking for "compassion and equality" while doing nothing. How the hell can someone say that Obama will not use gays as a wedge issue. HE ALREADY DID IT. Reaching out to black congregations with "holy men" that can cure gays. Hate the sin and love the sinner and all that malarky. They can keep it. I don't want Obama or his ilk's love. Your shrill defense of a man who has zilch for the gay community is baffling. I am not saying you should not support Obama over Hillary or whatever. What bothers me about these political Slog discussions is that seemingly intelligent liberals seem to think Obama isn't a politician or something. As though he is above pandering for votes or stretching the truth. He has done, he does it now and he will do it forever and ever until the end of time. It is dangerous to blindly trust everything this man says, or any politician. For some reason, people on this blog have become fanatical in their defense of him, completely ignoring the underhanded shit he and his campaign have done just in the past couple of weeks. It's scary to see Obama fast becoming the democrats' Bush. Yikes.

Posted by whatever | January 29, 2008 11:08 AM

all those obama quotes only highlight how wishy/washy he is on this issue. it only shows how he'll say ANYTHING to get the nomination. he's pandering to everyone, without delivering anything specific to anyone.

i love how everyone who is against hillary brings up bill's past, which has little to do with her future.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 11:14 AM

Hillary is the one who brought it up, lineout fan, when she decided to make him the center of her campaign. They routinely refer to "we" now, and "back in the White House". Bill has EVERYTHING to do with Clinton's future. Unfortunately.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 11:24 AM

In the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays. But, you know, don't let that get in the way of the McClurkin kerfuffle.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 11:30 AM

I can handle the Hillary hate up to a point, but not giving her credit for her work with The Gays is bullshit. Especially if you're going to turn around and praise the brave and noble Obama for talking about queers in church, when he's done little else to advocate for our rights. Just because he's been Slog-deified doesn't give him a free pass on this issue.

Hillary's said outright that her positions on gay issues have evolved. Yes, I'm positive it has something to do with political motivation, but there's no way you can tell me that Obama isn't politically motivated. Or you can, but I'll just ignore you.

We all know a candidate that goes balls-to-the-wall with sensitive political topics -- which, unfortunately, we still are a sensitive political topic -- ends up being cast as the crazy candidate who doesn't have a shot in hell, a la Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. It does require nuance to get shit done in Washington, especially when the topic is used over and over for Republican political gain. I think she's a brilliant political maneuverer and I truly feel that she is genuine in her desire to advance gay rights and stop the political marginalization of the LGBT. Whether or not you desire a brilliant political maneuverer as your president is another topic altogether and a personal choice.

New York City Council member Christine Quinn: "Every single time since I've been elected speaker, every time I've picked up the phone to ask Senator Clinton to help the LGBT community, she has said yes. She's assigned staff, she's taken her own time and political capital to put in on the deal."

Posted by The General | January 29, 2008 11:33 AM

whatever your intellectual dishonesty is astounding, really, it is. The facts show that when it comes down to gays Hillary Clinton and her husband were willing to take their money and then throw them under the bus first chance they got. You obviously don't remember the Defense of Marriage Act, you obviously don't remember "Don't ask, don't tell.". Contemptible, filthy little bits of political bigotry and triangulation that the Clinton administration gave us, and if Hillary Clinton was against them at the time well, she was pretty quiet about it.

You bitch and moan about Donnie McClurkin and compare Barack Obama to Bush. You tell us to do some research into Hillary's work with gay teens, but don't offer any examples (The only thing I can find from web searches that Clinton has done for gay teens is the video that Dan cited at the beginning of this thread. Can you offer any examples of this work? Or is your claim just more of your bullshit?). You piss and moan about Barack Obama's ties to anti-gay religious figures but fail to mention that Clinton is in bed with the same people and what's more brags about it on her website. Not surprising since her husband bragged about signing the Defense of Marriage Act.

If you're gay you're pretty much fucked in this election, neither Obama or Clinton is perfect, both of them shuck and jive on the issue of same-sex marriage. But on the other hand Obama is willing to stand in a black church on Martin Luther King day and condemn the homophobic elements of the black community while Hillary Clinton wouldn't even answer questions on her position on same-sex marriage when she was in San Francisco standing next to Gavin Newsom.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 29, 2008 11:40 AM

Having not spoken directly with Obama, I don't know if his choice to support civil unions vs. marriage equality is a personal choice or merely a political one.

That said, as has been pointed out above, he has been quite vocal about his support for equality, and in places and in front of audiences where it was not expected and where it would not be expected to earn him points for doing so.

Clinton, in contrast, has not been quick to discuss such issues outside of the expected audiences. More importantly, she refuses to support repealing ALL of the blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act.

And if she insists on campaigning on either her involvement in White House policy discussions with her husband or the two-for-one benefit we get with him, then she has to accept the hits that DOMA and the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policies would not exist without the Clintons and were a blatant sell-out of the LGBTA folks who supported Clinton.

Posted by Mickymse | January 29, 2008 11:41 AM

OK General, tell us about what the great and wonderful Hillary has done for gays. Let's see, she was there in the White House when Bill Clinton enacted "Don't ask. Don't tell", which, since she's counting her experience as first lady as part of those "35 years of experience" that make her the best candidate for president she gets to take responsibility for.

Then there was the signing of the Defense of Marriage act in 1996 and the subsequent advertisements that the Clinton campaign took out on southern Christian radio stations bragging about Clinton's signing of the act. This from a man who said that he was so ashamed of the bill that he signed it at midnight. Hillary was in the White House then and if she was against DOMA at the time she was pretty fucking quiet about it.

So what exactly has Hillary Clinton done? Hanging around with David Geffen and other rich queers and taking their money doesn't count. I want a list of real, substantive things that she has done, no bullshit quotes claiming that she's done wonderful thing. I want a list of stands and positions that she has publicly taken. I want examples of legislature that she has sponsored, championed and gone to the mats for. I want an explanation of why she has changed her mind on DOMA that doesn't stink of political expediency because if she changed her mind on the issue because of political expediency then there's no guarantee that she won't change it back, especially given her past behavior.

You bitch about how Obama has been deified on the Slog, but you, and all of the other Clinton supporters who make this complaint are just as bad as the Obama supporters, failing to offer up any substance to back your claims that Hillary is the better candidate.

Then, once we're done talking about that issue, the Clinton supporters can start explaining Clinton's vote for the war in Iraq and her willing acquiescence to the Bush administration in it's attempts to build a national security police state.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 29, 2008 11:51 AM

@3 is correct, and you know it.

As a female President, she'll be in a precarious position, and the triangulation decision will be to say nice empty words while making sure nothing gets done.

The reality is that either Edwards or Obama are much more likely to actually do anything GLBT-positive than Clinton is.

Which, I'm sure, is disappointing to all her supporters most especially the GLBT voters.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 11:56 AM

Barack Obama on Gay and Lesbian Issues... and [] in his own words:

* Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
* The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
* Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
* Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
* We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
* Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
* Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
* Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
* Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
* Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
* Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
* Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
* No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
* Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
* Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
* Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
* Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

Hilary Clinton on Gay and Lesbian Issues... and in her own words:

* Supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed. (Jul 2007)
* Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007)
* Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits. (Aug 2007)
* Let states decide gay marriage; they're ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)
* GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade. (Aug 2007)
* Don't ask don't tell was an important transition step. (Jun 2007)
* 2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex. (May 2007)
* Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards. (Oct 2006)
* Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
* End hate crimes and other intolerance. (Sep 2000)
* Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
* Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)
* Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

Posted by Mickymse | January 29, 2008 11:59 AM

Lineout---I totally agree. These sound byte comments against Hillary are meaningless and have little to do with who she is as a candidate. "Riding her husbands coattails" and "Bill Clinton did this" sound like Republican attacks that say little while trying to demean a candidate.
Wile---you are completely wrong. Like almost everything Obama does, it is pretty words followed by no action. Maybe more 'present' votes will help us gain equality.

My post was actually praising Dan for saying that he would research positions candidates, which I thought, was a very reasoned response. But a fanatical Obamatron decides to attack. No surprise there! I thought I find that kind of behavior more divisive than any of the claims leveled at Hillary of dividing Democrats.

This blog has become so venomous as of late. Any criticism against Obama results in a barrage of mean-spirited posts, it's bewildering. There is no political dialog; there is only grandstanding and derision.

Both McCain and Romney have plenty of openly gay people working in their campaigns, but that does not mean their policies aren't abhorrent. Judging Obama as a candidate based on his personal history or lip service is irrelevant.

I was an Edward's guy, but not that he is DOA I'm stuck trying to decide who would be the next best. I make observations about both candidates, so please keep your snarky pro-Obama comments to yourself. You are converting no one.

Posted by whatever | January 29, 2008 12:03 PM

The problem with Clinton supporters like you, whatever, is that you're so stuffed to the gills with victimhood you can't see straight. Everything you accuse "Obamatrons" of is in fact an indictment of your own attitude. YOU are doing it, not us.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 12:07 PM

#7 nailed it guys.

Posted by No thanks, hill | January 29, 2008 12:11 PM

@31 - I have no interest in trying to explain her Iraq War vote. I never supported it.

I didn't claim she was a better candidate on this issue. I just called BS on the idea that Barack is a better candidate on this issue.

My personal political preference is Hillary and I'm not interested in trying to be swayed to the other side, so save your finger muscles.

The reason I'm supporting her? She has better suits.

Posted by The General | January 29, 2008 12:17 PM

@10 - Single issue voting (particularly on "wedge issues" like this one) is selfish and inane. No matter how important a particular issue is to you, to give or withhold your vote for a candidate without considering the plethora of other important issues that we will have to face in the coming years is at best irresponsible, and at worst...well, single issue voting on the part of conservatives (whether abortion, war, etc.) gave us 8 years of W. Bush, so let's leave it at that.

Posted by Hernandez | January 29, 2008 12:28 PM

Fnarf, you are fucking nuts. "YOU are doing it, not us." Doing what? Having a discussion? Where it ever say I was a Hillary supporter? You are a nasty one aren't you?

Btw, I was not comparing Bush to Obama, but rather Obama supporters to Obama supporters. They deify him without acknowledging some very inconvenient truths about his record and qualifications. Never said I disliked him. I only wish others on this blog would recognize that he is in fact a "business-as-usual" politician peddling his version of the same old nonsense that will leave a lot of people disillusioned in the end. He will not change politics. He is no Kucinich or Gravel. Shit, he ain't even a Gore. Doesn't mean I won't vote for him, but I would like to have participated in a discussion with other liberals about pros and cons of both candidates, and the Slog has deteriorated so much as of late, that it is simply not the arena to do that anymore.

I think this will be my last comment to any political post. The same tired people making the same tired comments, while being as negative as possible. It's been real y'all!

Posted by whatever | January 29, 2008 12:37 PM


you are right. single issue voting is selfish. And when you've grown up in a world, in a "democracy" that sees you as evil, it makes sense to be selfish, when you can and should be.

i'm ready to take (back) the rights i deserve from america. obama wil certainly NOT give me those rights. he's a sham, a flim-flam man who is wishy/washy on ALL issues. pandering and pleasing everyone out his mouth but giving us NO substantive thoughts on anything.

just like the war, "i'm against it , though i helped fund it"

just like the enviroment, "i'm for a green world, but i'll take big coal's money."

just like choice, "i'm pro choice, but i won't put my money (or public vote) where my mouth is."

you don't think all those african americans in SC weren't single issue voters? than you were not watching poll results, reading news articles or watching TV in the last few weeks.

EVERY SINGLE AFRICAN AMERICAN that was interviewed said they were voitng for him because they wanted to see someone like THEM in the white house. Not because he would give them more power, more money, tax breaks, education, health care. NO. they said the only thing that was important to them was an african american president. THAT is single issue voting without a cause.

Me voting for rights i am still publicly denied? (i'm not saying african americans still don't face discrimination, but at least they have laws to help them combat it: i who have NOTHING however....)


Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 1:03 PM

Doesn't this sound cosy!

After his speech, Bush sought out Kennedy, his former partner in education reform, to exchange greetings. He also shook Obama’s hand and said hello in typical Bush fashion: “Hey buddy, how’s it going,” he said, according to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who also sat next to Obama for the speech.

from THE HILL:

Nelson is a Dem who supported the patriot act.

voted to keep troops in iraq.

voted against stem cell research.

voted against head start

voted against energy assistance for low income americans.

and has a 86% pro bush voting record.

nice people your with there Obama.

and now obama can count on the stranger too!

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 1:11 PM

I would like to congratulate "whatever" on this being his last post.


Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 1:11 PM

What about the Aleuts? What about the Albinos? What about those suffering from situs transversus? Can Hillary be all things to all men? women?

If she doesn't promise us a chicken or a pot to cook it in - or some actual pot, do we deny her three times before dawn? What about a car in every garage?

A rainbow 'round our shoulders? Not sure what she can do, what she'll be able to do or whether it's politic for her to disingenuously promise?

What if she just says "she cares"? What if she says "I'll do my best"?

Haysoose Maria!

Posted by BELMONT PLACE | January 29, 2008 1:16 PM

and ben nelson also was a big backer of DOMA.

nice friends Obama. a drunkdriver and a homophobe or two. just great!

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 1:21 PM
just like choice, "i'm pro choice, but i won't put my money (or public vote) where my mouth is."

That is bullshit.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive...

He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.

Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion. (2000)

lineout fan, perhaps you should examine Obama's actual record, and compare it to Hillary's, unless, of course, your hatred for him actually has nothing to do with his record on abortion or gay rights.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 1:38 PM

you know it's a close race when the candidates are held accountable for the actions and beliefs of the people they sit next to.

Posted by brandon | January 29, 2008 1:41 PM


lineout fan has it in for Obama. I wouldn't use her comments as representative of anything.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 1:48 PM


All i'm saying is at least you REALLY know where hillary stands.

Obama doesn't have the votes out there to show, now, does he?

perhaps you should examine obama's friends and neighbors, and compare those to hillary's.

...Unless that is your love for him actually has nothing to do with his record and appearances on abortion and gay rights.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 1:54 PM

@47 i'm not a woman.

@46 Ben Nelson has publicly endorsed Obama, and Obama accepted it without question. that is fairly disgusting. go look at nelson's record in the senate. Apparently Obama thinks Nelson is "a man with whom i can work." just like president bush does.

flim. flam. sham. wishy. washy. lame.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 1:58 PM

well hillary accepted barbra streisand's endorsement. have you seen "the mirror has two faces"? talk about disgusting.

Posted by brandon | January 29, 2008 2:11 PM

granted that babs is a terrible actress, but she's no ben nelson, or obama.

maybe she endorses hrc because she believes in equality for women, and gay rights (her son after all is a poof).

and c'mon, funny girl automatically trumps any bad movie she's ever made.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 2:26 PM

Lineout Fan and others, as a gay African American and native South Carolinian, perhaps we should meet for coffee or a drink sometime and calmly discuss the issue. I can assure you that my gay African American friends in SC are not deciding who to vote for based on their race. In fact, some of the voted for Edwards, and the rest evenly split their vote between Clinton and Obama.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 2:42 PM


not quite scientific, but you get the drift....

check out the 34 second mark. oy vey!

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 2:53 PM

so... you're mortified by the black woman who says she's voting for obama because he's black, but a-okay with the black woman just before her who is voting for hillary because she's a woman? classy!

Posted by brandon | January 29, 2008 3:07 PM

Lineout, are you going to take me up on my offer? You're too intelligent to paint a whole community with such a broad brush. What about the nearly 20% of blacks in SC who voted for Clinton? What about half of the Congressional Black Caucus and most of the black church leaders backing Clinton? How about the fact that Maxine Waters endorsed Clinton today? And then there is Bob Johnson, founder of BET. And I can go on and on and on.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 3:13 PM


Tony: look at the exit polling in south carolina. 50% of voters were black. of those voters 80% voted for obama.

apparently your friends (and half the congressional bc and maxine and mr. johnson) are smarter than the 80% who voted like the guy who looks just like them.

even black women, who made up 33% of those voters, voted for obama 79% over clinton.

those numbers are blatantly obvious. African americans in South Carolina voted for obama in huge numbers.

no your right, that's not "the whole community" but take a room with 10 people and put 8 on one side and 2 on another and it looks pretty obvious which direction the black vote went. and you could pretty much call that super-d-duper majority "the whole community".

20% is not even close to 80%. duh. it's pretty obvious.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 4:18 PM

"we're sorry; this video is no longer available"?

Posted by obamamama | January 29, 2008 4:22 PM

Yes, the overwhelming majority voted for Obama. But your logic is incorrect. When Al Sharpton ran in the last election, he only got 10% of the total vote. Edwards got the majority and won the state. I won't bother attempting to reason with you. You've made up your mind, and can't be reasoned with. Thanks for insulting part of my family and some of my friends. I'm glad that I'm not so full of hatred. Have a good life.

Posted by Tony | January 29, 2008 4:34 PM


I'm well aware of Hillary's position on the issues and her record. I'm aware that there is little difference between her positions and Obama's positions on most things, especially abortion and gay rights. What I don't understand is why you think there is such a substantial difference and why you are so determined to vilify Obama for taking the exact same positions as Hillary and having a very similar (if not better) record.

My conclusion is that this has nothing to do with Obama's record and has everything to do with either an irrational hatred of him or irrational blind support of Hillary, or both. (There's also the possibility that you're just plain old stupid.)

About 80 percent of white South Carolinian Dems voted for either Hillary or Edwards. Does that make them single issue voters since they clearly wanted a candidate who looks like them?

You might also want to shut the fuck up in vilifying Obama on the endorsements he's received. Politics is a dirty business and there is no way in hell that Hillary doesn't have some really nasty people endorsing her, such as Reverend Mayberry.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 4:52 PM

i'm not full of hatred, i've got a brain. there is the difference.

and even though bill has gotten a bad rap for stating the obvious, jackson did win twice, before sharpton (who is polarizing in the african american community)

so that would be what 3 times out of 4 that a majority of the african american electorat voted for someone who looked like themselves. once again, a super-d-duper majority (not 80%, but 75 this time).

and you haven't yet mentioned obama cozying up to pro war, anti-gay, anti aka early child education (which overwhelming benefits more african americans) ben nelson. ben nelson is also part of democrats for life an anti choice group.

yet obama hasn't distanced himself from nelson. in fact last night we saw him sitting right next to him at nelsons invitation at the sotu.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 5:01 PM


First, you get to explain why Hillary cozied up to Reverend Mayberry, a notorious homophobe.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 5:10 PM

Oh Jesus, that is just incredibly pathetic, lineout fan. I mean seriously. I'm not talking Clinton or Obama here; I'm talking about your miserable constipated argument here. You think you can't find a picture of Clinton sitting next to someone with less than impeccable credentials? "I could NEVER vote for some who sat next to BEN WHITEHORSE NELSON, oh my GAWD".

On the other hand, the Jesse Jackson argument is equally lame but vastly more virulent. Jackson's 10% in 1984 means only one thing in relation to Obama's victory in 2008: race-baiting. You can try to tie his win to race if you want, but it smells. It smells evil.

I'm STILL only hearing drama and crybaby whines from a couple of you -- lineout fan and whatever. You claim to want a discussion but all you ever offer up is rancidity and handwringing. Your candidate deserves better than that, don't you think? Jesus.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 5:14 PM

fnarf your being a dim wit.

it's not just that he's sitting next to these people, or touring with them. it's that he refuses to refute them, discuss them, challenge them.

nothing will get done in his presidency, if, god forbid, it happens, because he can't say "no" to those who carry bad ideas around him.

he couldn't say no to mcclurkin singing, and he couldn't say, "thanks ben, but i'm ANTI-WAR, PRO-CHOICE AND PRO EARLY LEARNING, UNLIKE YOU and i don't want your endorsement, because so much of what you believe is abhorrent to me."

he's pandering, playing both sides which means NOTHING will get done in his presidency except losing the following one to the gop. again.

thanks, but NO THANKS.

i don't want to elect someone who clearly can't stand up for what he believes in to the people who need him the most.

i want a strong leader who will stand up and work for me. not some wishy washy guy selling me hippie -love-in-bull-shit.

"can't we all just hug and get along?"

"FUCK NO! Fuck your war, fuck your tax cuts, fuck not helping the poor and needy. "

that's what i want. obama that ain't. hillary will stand up and fight. she's already shown she can do it.

every time there's a debate her poll numbers rise, because people realize she's smarter and has more talent and better ideas than obama.

that's why you should back hillary

at this rate i think he'd look kindly on an endorsement from tom delay.

he's just smarmy and slimy and gross.

okay, i'm officially cutting myself off from chai tea lattes and slog today.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 5:38 PM


re: mayberry

show me news papers, not blogs. neither of those blogs says where their quotes regarding hillary come from. except one from huffington, which is also floating without a source.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 5:43 PM

Yo, lineout: amidst the rest of your meltdown there, you're missing one interesting fact: your candidate is pro-war. She's not sitting next to someone who voted for the war; she IS THAT PERSON.

Saying that Obama hasn't challenged those who disagree with him is simply not true. And comparing Ben Nelson to Tom Delay is just infantile.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 6:13 PM

Thank you, Fnarf.

From now on, lineout fan is in the same boat as ecce homo, as far as I'm concerned.

whatever's not half as unreasonable.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 7:32 PM

Fuck! I'm such a glutton for punishment.

Here, lineout fan. Here's the evidence that Reverend Mayberry lurvs Hillary Clinton and that Hillary has no problem showing off his love. From her website:

"Senator Clinton has an excellent concept about how she plans to address issues surrounding crime and education. She described how she has partnered with leaders in New York to create a charter school specifically for African American men and notes that the Allen Cathedral AME Church charter school in Jamaica Queens, New York could be used as a model of how to help educate African American young men. Her mentioning of the school shows that she's aware of outstanding successful examples of education in this country. The way she addressed the need for the federal government to partner with inner cities suggests that she's not just focusing on international issues but that she's concerned with domestic ones - particularly crime and violence in our communities. I want a president who knows how to strike a balance between addressing international and domestic challenges facing this country," said Reverend Dr. Harold R. Mayberry, Senior Pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church and Chairperson of Network for Interfaith Action.

But let me guess. With whom Hillary surrounds herself doesn't reflect badly on her. You reserve those judgments for Obama, and only Obama.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 7:47 PM

I know what you're trying to say, Dan, but you made it sound fatuous and moronic.

Teenagers should NEVER enlist.

Teenagers should NEVER marry.

...regardless of sexual preference. Those 2 "rights" are of dubious quality even for adults. But for gay teenagers...? GET REAL.

Posted by Donovan | January 30, 2008 2:16 AM

What was there before "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Clinton was only the President, not the Emperor. Hillary says "it was a transitional policy" and she says it's time to change it.

Moot point though, as McCain is in favor keeping "Don't Ask Don't Tell", and likes "One man one woman" (well, maybe a few women on the side is OK), and NO BABY KILLING!, well, not American babies, but you know, collateral damage just happens sometimes.

Just wait 'till the big terrorist plot is foiled next October based on information from an Al Qaeda operative captured in Iraq.
Sure, Obama can say that if we had stayed out of Iraq and concentrated on Afghanistan there wouldn't be any Al Qaeda left, and Hillary could say; well, I was against the surge, but I did vote for the war!. But it won't do either of them much good.

I like Hillary, but since I am a white hetro male above draft age, I guess I don't really care all that much if the Democrats self destruct from internal squabbling. BTW, anyone notice that the new Democratic congress' approval ratings are similar to (less than) President Bush's?

Posted by Epimetheus | January 30, 2008 8:38 AM


Posted by ISHMAel back | February 9, 2008 1:19 PM


Posted by ISHMAel back | February 9, 2008 1:20 PM


Posted by ISHMAel back | February 9, 2008 1:20 PM


Posted by ISHMAel back | February 9, 2008 1:20 PM


Posted by ISHMAel back | February 9, 2008 1:20 PM


Posted by ISHMAel back | February 9, 2008 1:20 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).