HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bill Clinton Praises The ...

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:16 PM

 

Bill Clinton Praises The Demise Of DOMA, Without Mentioning That He Signed It Into Law

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a joint statement hailing the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.


It took us 17 years to undo DOMA. Thanks a lot Bill.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-statement-doma-supreme-court-decision-gay-marriage-2013-6

120 replies, 6712 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bill Clinton Praises The Demise Of DOMA, Without Mentioning That He Signed It Into Law (Original post)
rhett o rick Jun 2013 OP
dsc Jun 2013 #1
Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #3
The Link Jun 2013 #6
Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #8
Maximumnegro Jun 2013 #32
The Link Jun 2013 #33
DURHAM D Jun 2013 #41
Maximumnegro Jun 2013 #48
Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #53
Maximumnegro Jun 2013 #47
The Link Jun 2013 #75
AtomicKitten Jun 2013 #95
The Link Jun 2013 #76
Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #73
Freddie Jun 2013 #105
Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #106
loyalsister Jun 2013 #116
Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #118
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #64
The Link Jun 2013 #74
Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #94
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #109
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #108
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #110
HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #112
bike man Jun 2013 #10
boston bean Jun 2013 #19
HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #59
OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #79
HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #98
OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #111
HiPointDem Jun 2013 #83
HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #96
HiPointDem Jun 2013 #107
HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #113
HiPointDem Jun 2013 #114
HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #115
HiPointDem Jun 2013 #120
bike man Jun 2013 #101
boston bean Jun 2013 #104
rhett o rick Jun 2013 #11
dsc Jun 2013 #16
kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #78
dsc Jun 2013 #84
Coccydynia Jun 2013 #86
dsc Jun 2013 #87
Coccydynia Jun 2013 #88
dsc Jun 2013 #89
Coccydynia Jun 2013 #97
PoliticAverse Jun 2013 #2
Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #5
dsc Jun 2013 #7
Myrina Jun 2013 #13
dsc Jun 2013 #15
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #38
AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #67
dsc Jun 2013 #85
AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #99
dsc Jun 2013 #100
AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #102
graham4anything Jun 2013 #4
rhett o rick Jun 2013 #12
graham4anything Jun 2013 #17
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #22
graham4anything Jun 2013 #23
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #24
bullwinkle428 Jun 2013 #36
Phlem Jun 2013 #93
WinkyDink Jun 2013 #39
whatchamacallit Jun 2013 #9
unblock Jun 2013 #14
graham4anything Jun 2013 #21
Maximumnegro Jun 2013 #37
graham4anything Jun 2013 #43
Skittles Jun 2013 #49
Whisp Jun 2013 #65
unblock Jun 2013 #90
duffyduff Jun 2013 #119
William769 Jun 2013 #18
truebluegreen Jun 2013 #61
William769 Jun 2013 #62
truebluegreen Jun 2013 #63
Orsino Jun 2013 #117
Arugula Latte Jun 2013 #20
Bandit Jun 2013 #25
William769 Jun 2013 #26
DURHAM D Jun 2013 #35
PennsylvaniaMatt Jun 2013 #40
AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #68
AndyA Jun 2013 #27
hrmjustin Jun 2013 #28
Recursion Jun 2013 #29
Octafish Jun 2013 #30
DURHAM D Jun 2013 #31
graham4anything Jun 2013 #45
Arugula Latte Jun 2013 #46
DURHAM D Jun 2013 #50
AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #70
rhett o rick Jun 2013 #69
dsc Jun 2013 #103
malaise Jun 2013 #34
closeupready Jun 2013 #44
Apophis Jun 2013 #51
DURHAM D Jun 2013 #52
Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #72
closeupready Jun 2013 #42
BlueStreak Jun 2013 #54
rhett o rick Jun 2013 #56
BlueStreak Jun 2013 #58
DonCoquixote Jun 2013 #55
William769 Jun 2013 #66
bigwillq Jun 2013 #57
AtomicKitten Jun 2013 #60
Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #71
The empressof all Jun 2013 #77
4Q2u2 Jun 2013 #80
Whisp Jun 2013 #91
silvershadow Jun 2013 #81
Nye Bevan Jun 2013 #82
Phlem Jun 2013 #92

Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:18 PM

1. and of course Congess had nothing whatsoever to do with it

only Bill Clinton passed this law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:19 PM

3. He made a campaign commercial directed at Christian groups in which he bragged about DOMA.

Yes, he threw gays under the bus in order to get homophobes to vote for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:20 PM

6. Many Presidents, including the current one, exploited homophobic feelings to get votes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:22 PM

8. Yep. Reminds me of the "sausage factory" saying. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:54 PM

32. that makes no sense considering

Obama's many DOCUMENTED speeches about his views and the fact that during his administration is when the most gains have been made and...

Seriously? You dislike him that much you actually believe he has not played a significant part? Do you believe that all the progress that has been made would have happened anyway under McCain and Romney?

Is the hate that strong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:55 PM

33. what the hell are you talking about? he changed his mind on marriage last fucking year.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:01 PM

41. Yes. Just two days after NC passed an amendment to their constitution

and one day after Biden walked him into a corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:09 PM

48. Okay so Biden MADE Obama change

his mind now. I see. He is so inept that he got bullied by Biden. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:25 PM

53. Are you implying that Biden has some sort of problem

such that only the inept could be out-manoeuvred by him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:08 PM

47. Doesn't answer my questions

1) that is specifically, SPECIFICALLY regarding gay marriage.
2)There is a difference between HIS OWN views on gay marriage, and what he has SUPPORTED.

So again, can you answer the questions. Are you saying he has played no significant role in the gains made. Are you saying the gains made (GAINS, not just GAY MARRIAGE specifically) for the LGBT community would have been the same under McCain and Romney?

Mind you the post above is regarding EXPLOITING HOMOPHOBIC FEELINGS. THAT is what you are agreeing to. That Obama has explited homophobia. Please defend that. I would love to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:54 PM

75. I am saying that when it was politically safe for him to do so, he came on board.

 

Where the rest of us have been for a long, long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #75)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:44 PM

95. Safe? It was before the 2012 election.

 

That's before, not after, and certainly not 17 years removed from the scene of the crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:59 PM

76. Donnie McClurkin as a campaign surrogate absolutely exploited homophobia.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:38 PM

73. Obama's position on same gender marriage until very recently

was lip service, when necessary, coupled (at least during the primaries leading up to the 2008 election and the early years of his first term) with a core discomfort with LGBT issues. He did us no favors - and in many ways betrayed us. That is why during the 2008 primaries I supported other candidates, rather than him. Until Edwards - who had that same core discomfort - dropped out of the primaries I supported him because he was at least honest about his personal struggles with LGBT issues. I knew where he stood. I wouldn't always like where he stood, but I wouldn't be expecting different from what might be delivered.

That changed for President Obama - particularly his core connection with LGBT issues. I don't know exactly when - but by the time he made his public announcement supporting same gender marriage the change was palpable. It was just as clear to me that it was not just lip service or politics - as it had previously clear that it was. I think it was his connection with the parents of some of his children's friends, and some people I know personally who have regular contact with him, that was the catalyst for change.

I won't dismiss the role of politics, and the changing tide of public opinion, as factors in the timing of the public announcement.

But however, and whenever, he got here he is NOW he is a strong advocate for LGBT rights, and has played a very positive role in grabbing the momentum and turning that momentum into concrete gains. And that thrills me.

But that thrill is tempered by the visceral memory of bus wheels running across my torso for the first 3 years of his administration. That memory will fade - but it will also take time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #73)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:16 PM

105. I think Obama's issue was the African American community

Which, deserved or not, had a reputation for being opposed to gay rights, and the President was hesitant to anger his strongest supporters. In the end he did the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Reply #105)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 06:33 PM

106. No. It was strong personal discomfort.

I've spent most of my life interacting with people who can mouth what they know the right thing to be with respect to LGBT issues - with varying degrees of gut knowledge that it really is the right thing. (As well as people who are just blatant bigots and don't care what the right thing is.) In more than three decades you get a pretty good sense of when what is going on in the gut doesn't match the public presentation.

As I noted - the same thing was going on with Edwards, except that he was very honest about it (which didn't win him many friends in the LGBT community).

But there truly has been a palpable change. I stopped listening for a while because it just made me angry. So sometime in the last couple of years, before his announced support of same gender marriage, something really changed at a gut level for him.

He is also a political creature, so the timing of the public announcement of that gut level change may well have been influenced by political considerations. But the kind of advocacy we now see isn't something which is purely political, nor is it something which can be sustained without the kind of gut level change I had sensed (any more than the damaging action and inaction of most of his first term could have been sustained had the change preceded his first term in office).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #106)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:35 AM

116. It was political because, like it or not he's a politician

He identified the 2004 controversy as a distraction and at first argued that in the absence of meaningful consensus, civil unions could be a compromise.

He wrote about a conversation he had with a supporter who was a lesbian...
"I was reminded that it is my obligation as an elected official in a pluralistic society and as a christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided

I think the fact that he values the fact that we live in a pluralistic society drives his inclination to compromise. He lacks the hubris to claim "my way or the highway." Oddly that was one of my and many other's chief complaints about W.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #116)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:52 AM

118. We'll have to disagree.

I was addressing what I was picking up from how he talked about people he knew or encountered who were gay - and, frankly, the comment you quoted is a perfect example. Intellectualizing, emotionally distancing, and mouthing the right words. The position is political - the way he talks about it, the tone, the word choices, the affect all of those things signal what is going on at a gut level.

Contrast that statement with the much warmer, more personal statement of support, "Obama said his daughters, Malia and Sasha, have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. "It wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."

That doesn't mean the change (or that his earlier position) wasn't also political.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:20 PM

64. Difference he, the current president was not vicious about it. He did not run on the issue and brag

 

about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:53 PM

74. Having a surrogate like McClurkin wasn't vicious?

 

Ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #74)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:44 PM

94. "Surrogate"? Really?

You are vastly over-stating his importance to the electorate.

I seem to not remember McClurkin on the campaign trail stumping for Mr. Obama, going state to state in order to incite the homophobe vote; please correct me if I am amiss in my memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #94)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:42 PM

109. Exactly!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #74)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:40 PM

108. No. Elton John performed for Rush Limbaugh. Does that make him vicious?

 

ETA: Barack Obama did not run on a DOMA-like platform. He has his won personal views, but he didn't go around on the campaign trail bragging about his disdain for gay marriage. He just didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #74)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:48 PM

110. This doesn't sound like someone who's vicious...

 

DAKAR, Senegal (AP) President Barack Obama on Thursday praised the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage as a "victory for American democracy" but clashed with his African host over gay rights in a sign of how far the movement has to go internationally.

Obama said recognition of gay unions in the United States should cross state lines and that equal rights should be recognized universally. It was his first chance to expand on his thoughts about the ruling, which was issued Wednesday as he flew to Senegal, one of many African countries that outlaw homosexuality.

Senegalese President Macky Sall rebuffed Obama's call for Africans to give gays equal rights under the law.

"We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality," Sall said, while insisting that the country is "very tolerant" and needs more time to digest the issue without pressure. "This does not mean we are homophobic."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clashes-african-host-over-gay-rights-134627018.html

----

Obama goes to other countries to push for marriage equality, even ones that tend to be more homophobic and sexist. Yeah, that's a VICIOUS man, he is!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 11:19 PM

112. Vey true.

 

However, their actions (although callous and political at the time) are partially mitigated by later regret...especially when they act to correct themselves afterwards, such as Obama ending DADT. There is a lot I'm critical of Obama for, but IMO he took a good leadership role in gay rights. I wish he took as strong a leadership role in other issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:26 PM

10. Only Bill Clinton signed it into law. He was for it before he was against it I guess. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bike man (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:40 PM

19. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve scorn, but a veto would have been over ridden

I think that would have been preferable.. Because as it stands he appears to have signd it for political reasons, even though he didn't want to. The election was coming up.. Sad state of affairs all the way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:04 PM

59. To be honest, he did later express regret at signing it.

 

It appears he signed the bill as a political calculation. Obviously, he should have stuck to his guns and vetoed it if he thought it was wrong. Even Obama seemed to have come around, reportedly due to pressure from his girls.
Perhaps we should commend those polititians that have changed their minds, rather than condemn them. After all, many of the Dem leadership 50 years ago were once segregationists, later supported racial equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:06 PM

79. Lt. Gen DeWitt is said to have expressed regret for his actions, too.

 

Sorry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #79)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 04:17 PM

98. No he didn't.

 

. He hid documents from the Courts, and ignored Court orders to stop. There is no evidence he regretted or apologized for his actions, nor did he do any actions in behalf of J-A's afterward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #98)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:53 PM

111. That's why I wrote

 

"is said."

I have no doubt that Lt. Gen. DeWitt had no regrets for what he had done. Others have attributed moral failing to the internment, however, in an attempt to hide the real cause (economic.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:10 PM

83. pressure from his *girls*? pressure from his donors more likely.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #83)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 04:02 PM

96. I recall an article that quotes Obama saying ...

 

...that Sasha and Malia changed his mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #96)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 09:34 PM

107. yeah, politicians always make major political decisions based on what their 12-year-olds tell them.

 

whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #113)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:14 AM

114. guess what, nice story, & i don't believe it. politicians don't make major political decisions

 

because of what their kids think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #114)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 09:56 AM

115. Obama admitted he was wrong.

 

A lesson some DUers haven't learned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #115)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:59 PM

120. guess what. nothing to do with obama being right or wrong. political decisions aren't made

 

because of politicians' moral visions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 05:16 PM

101. And a veto would have put him on record as 'this is a bad bill, won't be approved by me because

 

it is a bad bill'

If it was then overridden, the scorn would have been on congress, not the president.

Imagine! A president standing on principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bike man (Reply #101)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 05:37 PM

104. That was my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:28 PM

11. How very absurd! Of course Congress shares responsibility. But Pres. Clinton and Ms. Clinton

 

are now jumping on the band wagon 17 years later. I wonder if DOMA would have gotten overturned if Ms. Clinton was president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:36 PM

16. I would imagine so since her court appointments would like have been as liberal as Obama's

and Bill Clinton's appointees provided as many votes as Obama's in any case. (2 each)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

78. Nobody forced him to sign it. He bears considerable responsibility.

 

That said, in today's climate I think he would take note of how the majority favors gay rights. He was always good at testing which way the wind was blowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #78)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:13 PM

84. He tried to permit gays to openly serve

when at most 40% agreed with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:15 PM

86. Ever heard of a god damned veto?

 

How many years will we have to wait to close down Gitmo after Obama tied his OWN hands by signing the bill that prevented him from closing Gitmo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coccydynia (Reply #86)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:18 PM

87. every heard of veto proof margins

you might, just might, want to crack open these things called history books once in awhile. Both houses passed with veto proof margins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #87)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:21 PM

88. Ever heard of standing on principle?

 

Even Obama's hero, Reagan, vetoed on principle and was overridden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coccydynia (Reply #88)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:24 PM

89. I am not saying he shouldn't have or couldn't have vetoed

but the fact is the law would still been there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #89)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 04:11 PM

97. Probably. However, after making a stand

 

Perhaps some Democrats would have reconsidered. On the other hand, Clinton was a Blue Dog, which in my book is Republican Lightz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:19 PM

2. Yeah that was pretty hypocritical there... As Colbert put it...

"it was passed ... for the sacred purpose of getting Bill Clinton re-elected"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/27/colbert-tells-straight-people-how-to-protect-their-marriages-from-gay-threats/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:20 PM

5. I like Bill, but he certainly knew how to play politics to his advantage.

Like when he went back to Arkansas during the campaign for the execution of the mentally retarded guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:21 PM

7. that is a total lie

it was a GOP Congress that passed it, yes with heavy Democratic support, but it was a GOP Congress which I am going to go out on a limb here and say didn't want Clinton reelected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:31 PM

13. ... and he couldn't have vetoed it?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:34 PM

15. He could have but it would have been overridden

but you wrote, and I quote, it was passed for the sacred purpose of getting Clinton reelected. That was a lie, plain and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:59 PM

38. You DO know who Stephen Colbert is, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:25 PM

67. So what if it was overriden?

It's not like they impeach you when they override a veto.

He pandered. He tried to get more votes. This issue would get more centrist votes.
It was an unprincipled self-serving political gamble, and it worked for him. Don't know why this would be controversial or hard for you to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #67)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:14 PM

85. the law would still exist

Hence to blame him and not even mention the Congress is pretty dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #85)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 04:59 PM

99. Was the 1996 congress up in front of a microphone somewhere talking about how great it was this was

overturned?

I missed that.

Everyone knows the president doesn't pass legislation, he or she only signs it once the Congress passes it.
He had an opportunity to stand against it. He didn't. He went along to get along in an election year. This is not news. The fact they would have overridden his veto doesn't change the moral implications of signing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #99)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 05:13 PM

100. well actually Pat Leahy who voted for it

issued a statement. Tom Harkin who voted for it, issued a statement. I could go on but won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #100)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 05:18 PM

102. Oh, I'm sure they did.

And there are several threads and online callouts going around for people who voted for that law. It's not like this one article here on Bill is the only one anywhere calling out hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:20 PM

4. Thank you Hillary Clinton.Look at what Rand Paul said against it(bring a barf bag Rand is fuming mad

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:29 PM

12. What thanks does Ms. Clinton deserve? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:38 PM

17. Elton John has said she is a major supporter & Elton is the #1 fundraiser for AIDS in the world

 

so I trust his opinion on the matter
In fact, Elton was very upset when Hillary lost in 2008, for just this reason.
Now I did not support Hillary in 2008, however

What would Bob Dole and Jeb Bush and W and 41 and Rand and Ron Paul have done? NOTHING at all.

Why the hatred for Hillary?

Hillary and Bill are not the same person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:41 PM

22. Elton John supports NAFTA?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:43 PM

23. One thing is sure, after both court rulings, LBJ has moved to #1 as the greatest president of all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:44 PM

24. Elton John support LBJ?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:58 PM

36. Well, not sure about his support for LBJ, but we know he supports Limbaugh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:38 PM

93. Yep.

Also Hillary Clinton has no skeletons in her closet!

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:00 PM

39. Hardly. See: "Conflict, VietNam."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:23 PM

9. Politicians...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:34 PM

14. he did acknowledge this fact, maybe a few months ago, and that he had since had a change of heart.

or perhaps simply that he had sensed a shift in the political winds.


to me, this is the most amazing thing about the timeline. 17 years ago bill clinton, as potus, felt the politics of gay rights were such that he needed to throw a mostly democratic constituency under the bus for his own political power.

and this year, the potus, vpotus, bill clinton, and many other democrats are actually falling over themselves to position themselves in support of gay rights.

i know 17 years sounds like a long time, and of course it's a disgrace that we have even had to fight this battle at all. but in comparison to the timeline of progress on other forms of bigotry, the last 17 years have actually been remarkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:41 PM

21. +1. FORWARD, not harping on the past and going backward.

 

I have no idea, but is this anti-Clinton happening today, an attempt to divide the party going into 2016?

And, it shows FORWARD is the optimum word, instead of people wanting to go BACKWARD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:59 PM

37. Clinton is an azzhat. How is this a surprise.

The Clintons are inherently divisive because they have a lifetime of wanting it both ways. By Clintons I really mean Bill, because as awesome as Hillary may be Bill always wants the spotlight and always ends up putting his foot in his mouth.

The biggest obstacle for a Hillary presidency is her damn husband.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:02 PM

43. Hillary is her OWN person. She is not owned by anyone.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:11 PM

49. CORRECT

VERY much her own person

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:22 PM

65. i'm sure he has sleepless nights about this now, along with Rwanda and all the other crap

 

he is responsible, or partly responsible for.

That's a Clinton for ya. Pretend apologies go a long way to a rapt and eager audience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #65)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:30 PM

90. i tend to think most politicians make most big decisions based on politics rather than conviction

i have no doubt that both his decision to sign doma then and his decision to apologize for it now are cynical appeals to the prevailing political winds. cynical politics are so common that even when a president is being genuine it's hard to be sure there's not a political motive in there somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:48 AM

119. If he becomes contrite over his signing the Glass-Steagall repeal

 

despite the fact Congress would have overridden any veto, then I will believe him.

Bill Clinton needs to retire from public life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:39 PM

18. He has made amends.

I met him and Hilary in 1993 followed his presidency closely (the good and the bad). I do not regret voting for him either time (given what was before him the previous 12 years).

He's all right in my book And will be remembered as one the the great Presidents of our time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:15 PM

61. "...of our time" is a pretty low bar. imho.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #61)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:18 PM

62. Ok, my time.

Better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:20 PM

63. Whatever you like.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:47 AM

117. No, he hasn't.

He might have reformed, but he has not refunded the happiness and monetary benefits he helped steal from US citizens.

IMO, "making amends" really isn't possible. He's had all the marriage and money he needs for a long time. Changing his mind isn't amends.

But it isn't nothing. In today's American politicscape, he and Hillary look progressive, and do deserve some credit. Along with a mountain of debits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:40 PM

20. Slick Willy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:46 PM

25. In Clinton's first few months in Office he spent much of his political capital trying to allow gays

in the military. He caught holy hell about it and had to settle for DADT which was a whole fucking bunch better than what had been. People went to jail for being gay in the military and Clinton changed that. Now the Military could no longer go after gays unless the gays brought the matter up themselves and then the most the military could do was a discharge.. No longer could they just send them to jail. so bad mouth Clinton all you want on the gay issue but he did an awful lot to make life better for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:48 PM

26. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:58 PM

35. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:01 PM

40. Took the words out of my mouth....

I was going to post about how President Clinton pushed hard to end the ban on gays in the military as one of his first acts in office.

This country has evolved DRASTICALLY on the issue of gay rights, just in the past 8 years, let alone 17 since DOMA was passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:27 PM

68. Mixed bag.

Thanks though, I had forgotten that he did stand up for that. I remember it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:49 PM

27. Yeah, thanks a lot Bill.

Special thanks to everyone still in Congress who voted for that piece of crap that discriminated against people all these years. If it's unconstitutional now, it was unconstitutional then and it shouldn't have ever been passed.

Some of us won't forget that as you gloat over this victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:50 PM

28. I am glad Bill Clinton has seen the error of his ways.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:50 PM

29. He said, when signing it, he didn't like the law

But that it wasn't a fight he could win at that moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:50 PM

30. What are you trying to do, wreck a photo op?

C'mon. What is this place turning into? Business Insider. Really?



Wonder what the former president would say should Congreff ever repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:53 PM

31. As a long time LGBT activist I find this sort of OP title very sad

because it reflects such a profound level of ignorance regarding our history. Perhaps you have failed to notice that we do not have a federal amendment to the constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage. You can thank President Clinton for that as he took the advice of progressive and LGBT leaders and signed the damn thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #31)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:04 PM

45. that would spoil the rant.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #31)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:04 PM

46. Passing a Constitutional amendment is no easy feat. It takes years

 

and the cooperation of 2/3s of the House and Senate and 3/4s of the states' legislatures. It's not like someone could have snapped their fingers and put an amendment into the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #46)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:14 PM

50. Yes. And at the time it was not just possible it was probable.

Also, the Democrats were working hard to stem the tide of take-overs of state legislatures and governor's offices by the Republicans and the amendment was a slam dunk issue for them. DOMA was designed to side-track the tsunami.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #50)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:28 PM

70. I disagree.

We have not come SO FAR in 15 years that it is impossible now, and not impossible then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #31)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:27 PM

69. Let me see if I get your point. We should thank Pres Clinton for 17 years of DOMA

 

because it could have been worse? Plez. The last 17 years have been hell for some. I doubt they would agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #69)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 05:26 PM

103. If we had had the constitutional amendment

then it seems to me that instead of 17 we would have had about 100. I am not saying I know for sure we would have had one, but it was certainly a possibility and had it happened then it would have been all but impossible to overturn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:57 PM

34. Didn't he use DOMA for his re-election?

I am always amazed that he gets a free pass for a lot of things. Clinton is no liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:03 PM

44. Spot on, malaise.

 

Completely agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:16 PM

51. Neither Clinton is a liberal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:21 PM

52. Neither is the current President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:38 PM

72. Yes.

He bragged about it on tv in a long speech he gave about saving marriage.
Then he bit his lower lip and held up his right thumb.

Clinton had become a caricature by 1996.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:02 PM

42. He did indeed sign it, I remember - it was like nothing to him,

 

a joke or something. I don't remember him struggling too long before doing so.

Anyway, I'm glad he and Hillary have finally 'evolved' - nonetheless, as the saying goes, "a friend in need is a friend indeed" and I do not count Bill as a friend to the GLBT community; when he could have used his power to be a friend, he chose to empower bigots.

JMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:25 PM

54. If he wants to be helpful, he should renounce NAFTA and the Pacific deal

 

rather than waiting for another another 10 years of pain and suffering by average Americans.

It isn't particularly helpful to throw the LGBT community under the bus, then 20 years later saying "I'm so happy being under the bus for 20 years didn't kill you."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #54)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:42 PM

56. More importantly how does Ms. Clinton stand on NAFTA and the Pacific deal? nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:58 PM

58. As far as we know, she is also a "New Democrat"

 

Which is to say a person who embraces nearly all of the horrible policies that Republics push, while still trying to convince us that he or she is a real populist.

At least Republicans are honest about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:41 PM

55. That's ok

People are ready to elect his wife into office in 2016, who will be a "fighter" for progressive ideals, forgetting she fought to kill them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #55)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:22 PM

66. Whats that say about President Obama?

They are on the same page. IMHO, thats a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:43 PM

57. Hey, Bill: Take your wife and go on a long vacation

 

Like never come back.

Enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:14 PM

60. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:30 PM

71. No shit.

He's like a black hole, he sucks everything in to which no light can escape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

77. Yep...what you said....

Didn't care for him then...Hate what he did to my party during his terms...He still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Honestly...he's one of the major factors I can't wrap my head around Hillary....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:07 PM

80. 1%er

Maybe he can go to one of the Whitest and Richest places in America, oh that's right he already lives there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:32 PM

91. ++++++++++++

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:08 PM

81. He was a moderate Republican back then...or so it would seem, anyway? I have no explanation for his

 

actions, though I am sure he does. Now, NAFTA, that's a core Democratic...no, wait...nevermind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:09 PM

82. I wonder whether he would praise the exoneration of Ricky Ray Rector,

without mentioning that he approved his execution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 03:36 PM

92. And we're still dealing with his

NAFTA and it's evil off springs.

"Big D#*!"

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread