Clinton: "I have evolved on gay marriage"

[xyboymil]

New York City) In an appearance early Wednesday evening in front of roughly three-dozen LGBT leaders, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated that she would not oppose efforts by Eliot Spitzer, the odds-on favorite to become the new governor, to enact a same-sex marriage law in New York.

She also suggested that language she used when she first ran for the Senate in 2000 explaining her opposition to marriage equality based on the institution's moral, religious, and traditional foundations had not reflected the "many long conversations" she's had since with "friends" and others, and that her advocacy on LGBT issues "has certainly evolved."

On Wednesday, Clinton presented her position on marriage equality as more one of pragmatism.

"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out," she said. "From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."
Clinton addressed a gathering organized by the Greater Voices Coalition made up of LGBT Democratic organizations citywide. Leaders of those clubs, along with out elected officials, including Democratic district leaders and state committee members, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, state Senator Tom Duane, and Assemblymembers Deborah Glick and Daniel O'Donnell, were in attendance. The meeting, which was held at the Upper East Side home of a Clinton supporter, ran for more than an hour.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/10/102606clinton.htm

Sorry if this was posted already. However, I think it is significant.

Hillary moving left of center? Or pandering for 2008 votes from Liberals?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Words are cheap, especially in campaign season

What has she actually done to prove this alleged change of heart?

Pardon the :tinfoilhat: but this gay man has been bitch-slapped by campaign lies far, far too often not to be cynical.

[bahrbearian]

25. What she did was stick her finger in the air,, Words are cheap.

[SouthernBelle82]

28. I agree there

If Hillary has changed her mind than good for her. I would like to see her put her actions with her words. Anybody can easily say that right now with nothing to vote on right now with everyone worrying about re-election.

[Cha]

70. Interesting about

Spitzer, though. I had no idea that he wanted to enact a "same sex marriage act"!

[xyboymil]

2. As a gay man myself, I understand your concerns...

I still think 'Dont ask, Dont tell' was one of the stupidist laws enacted by her husband.

But I also believe people can change.

I hope for Hillary's sake that is the case.

[cautiouslywaiting]

10. I agree

I'm a little suspicious any time someone in the spotlight suddenly changes their mind about something like this. But it's possible she genuinely had a change of heart. For now, I'll accept it at face value.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Mmmm.... Golden Triangle.... So Shiny...

Ahhh... so good... to my right are the folks who don't want gay unions... THEY GO TOO FAR... to my left are the people who want to call it "marriage"... THEY GO TOO FAR... mmmm... triangle... so shiny... Bill is so proud... don't ask, don't tell...

[blm]

4. Did she support Bill's advice in 2004 for Dems to side with anti-gay

amendments on state ballots?

[MessiahRp]

11. That advice was the biggest pile of shit Bill tried to heap on Kerry

Thank goodness Kerry told him no way on that... it's just too bad he didn't shun the Clintonites when it came to all other advice they offered.

Rp

[blm]

13. Like "Don't mention BCCI, people don't want to hear it"

I would bet those Dem party "focus groups" were run by Clinton loyalists and the contrived info was passed on to Kerry campaign....inter-party "concern trolls" in my view.

[hijinx87]

42. jeeeeez. I think I could script the next 50 replies to this . . .

[madfloridian]

45. Well, then say it this way.

Because BCCI was not pursued BFEE is going strong.

She is right about that.

[Zhade]

87. "Concern trolls" - good one!

Yeah, I'm pretty pissed at the thought of Clinton hamstringing Kerry that way. BCCI was extremely important, and remains so.

[AtomicKitten]

99. Except it isn't true -- It was Kerry's plan

This was always his POV and some find it convenient to continue to blame Clinton. Here he discusses it in reference to his state.

Democrats' platform shouldn't back gay marriage, Kerry says

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 6, 2005

BATON ROUGE, La. -- US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.

Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.

''I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake," Kerry said shortly after hosting a forum on his universal children's healthcare bill in Baton Rouge. ''I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

Some analysts believe that the same-sex marriage issue contributed to Kerry's loss to President Bush in last year's presidential campaign. Kerry's position puts him at odds with the state Democratic Party chairman and his fellow Bay State senator, Edward M. Kennedy, who is scheduled to address the party convention next weekend.

Kerry said he does not plan to attend this year's state Democratic convention or to lobby against the same-sex marriage plank. He said he has not been closely monitoring debate over the state party platform.

continued at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/06/democrats_platform_shouldnt_back_gay_marriage_kerry_says/

[rodeodance]

5. I thinks she has seriously reflected on this issue.

....Sorry if this was posted already. However, I think it is significant.

Hillary moving left of center? Or pandering for 2008 votes from Liberals?

[LostinVA]

8. Me too, I'll give her credit for this

I know lots of people who have changed their minds on gay marriage, some were were very liberal on other issues, but very against marriage equality.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a long time ago. It was and is appalling, but people's views CAN change.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. I do too. And I think we do progress a disservice when we are

too quick to write people off, or to allow them the chance to change.

It's not as easy as "this is right". There are old, old prejudices to overcome. There are knee-jerk reactions carefully bred into people to overcome. But we all have to continue to calmly, kindly, work toward helping people see the harm they do when they give in to those prejudices. I think more good work is done person to person on the issue. And sometimes people just need a little time to come around.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

90. She definitely gets credit for this.

As for DADT, Mel White has stated that Clinton didn't personally want to pass it, but that his advisers felt it would have been political suicide to flat out lift the ban. So he went with the incredibly shitty compromise of DADT. I have the exact quote around here somewhere, but I'm too lazy right now to go digging through all my stuff on DADT.

[CTD]

27. Bullshit. It's just a blatant pander.

As a rule, if you believe what she says, regardless of the subject, you're doing so at your own risk.

She sold her soul a long time ago in her quest for ever greater power.

[oasis]

89. Then you don't have a problem with her for not apologizing for Bush's War?

Good. :-)

[Javaman]

6. Evolved or changes with the political wind...it's the same thing.

At the end of the day, she's still just a politician.

[beaconess]

12. So if a politician ever in their career takes a position you disagree with

they're forever stuck with that position and it will never matter to you if they change their minds?

Politicians are not evil pods - they're human beings who evolve like the rest of us - except people like Bush who stays stuck in whatever ignorant mindset he first clamped down on and never changes his mind.

I appreciate a politician who says "I'm looking at the issue differently now."

[LostinVA]

21. Good post, imo

[Javaman]

24. I never said anything negative, I just said she's just a politician...

You were the one that put words in my mouth.

Sure she can change her mind, I could care less, however, as long as she supports the war, she will never ever get my support.

With that said, she's just another politician out to get votes. If you think that she's above that, then she should pull her support for the war.

For me, the war trumps everything.

[madfloridian]

31. Well, she might want to talk to her husband.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2908932&mesg_id=2909006

[blondeatlast]

7. Took her a while to notice the wind changed, I guess.

Sorry, Hill, you just are a little too slow on the uptake for my taste, though. :eyes:

[Ian David]

9. Civil Unions at the state level are still grossly unfair unless...

we also have a Federal Civil Union Statute that is 100% equal to Civil Marriage.

If Hillary, or any other "Moderate" wants to impress me, then they should propose FEDERAL Civil Unions.

[Mass]

15. It is what Kerry proposed during the 04 campaign.

to give every federal benefits given to marriage to civil unions. I will try to find the quote.

Reference here. I think he should get over the semantic distinction between marriage and civil unions, but he was proposing the same rights at a federal and local level during the 04 campaign.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/kerryedwardsmarriage.pdf

[madfloridian]

14. Then according to her husband she has "forfeited the right" to run as prez

I am sorry, but this is just too much for me to take this morning. Here is what Hillary's hubby, Bill, did behind the scenes against one of our candidates.

"It remains to be seen, too, just how much my support for the civil unions bill will hurt my chances to reshape Democratic politics. Some pretty important Democrats have shown they think it might. When former president Clinton was trying to drum up support for Wes Clark, just prior to Clark's entry into the presidential race a year ago, he called a friend in a large city and said "I need you to be for Wes Clark." The friend demurred. Clinton said, "Look, I'm from Arkansas, and Wes is from Arkansas, we need to be for Wes. "

The friend told Clinton he was Dean supporter. "Howard Dean", Clinton said "forfeited his right to run for president when he signed the civil unions bill. He can't win."

It was a rare mistake for the president. The supporter was gay and called us to tip us off.

Page 113 You Have the Power by Howard Dean, 2004.

On edit, if she has truly reached that decision, it is a great thing. Good for her.

Some things are hard to put behind. When you have the former president campaigning for or against you it is a powerful thing. Power needs to be used wisely.

[blm]

18. I also thought that was an OBTUSE assessment from Clinton. Dean did what

Bill would have done underthe exact same circumstance where the state SC dictated that SOME equality measure MUST be passed.

Civil unions IS what most of America would be fine with, and even Bush in his last NBC interview before the election made certain he sided with civil unions, to assuage the moderates in his party.

[madfloridian]

23. Obtuse, very misleading, very damaging.

And very unfair to the gay community.

[beaconess]

41. Well, actually that was according to Howard Dean who was told by

an unnamed person that Bill Clinton had made that comment to him.

[madfloridian]

43. Well, there we differ.

I have been trying to get someone to go on record to say that it is just rumor.

I don't really believe a man who was governor for 12 years, a doctor, also a stock broker, would just make up stuff like that.

There are many indications it happened.

It is time to speak of it. If you need to deny it, please do so. it is a serious accusation to say that Howard Dean would publish it in his book if not true. So approach it from that direction...should get interesting.

[beaconess]

54. I didn't say he made anything up . . .

But he did not hear Clinton say that. He said that someone TOLD him that he heard Clinton say it. I have no reason to think that Howard Dean was lying. But that doesn't mean that Clinton actually said any such thing.

[madfloridian]

56. You don't get off that easy.

If Dean is telling the truth in published form, which I believe firmly to be true in light of of much other stuff that went on....then it happened.

So you can not say that if Howard is telling the truth that it maybe did not happen anyway.

It just does not work that way.

[beaconess]

64. Let me explain this to you again s-l-o-w-l-y

Howard Dean said that someone told him something. I have no reason to doubt that he's telling the truth that this person did indeed tell him that.

But since Howard Dean, despite his many talents, is not a mindreader or psychic or polygraph machine, he has absolutely no first hand knowledge whether the person who told him this was telling him the truth, whether he was mistaken or in any other way whether Bill Clinton actually uttered those words.

So if Dean is telling the God's honest truth - as he probably is - the only fact we're sure of is that he was told that Bill Clinton said something.

Everything else is just hearsay. Yes, it's possible that Bill Clinton did actually say it. But Howard Dean's comment, truthful as it may be, in no way proves it.

But if you choose to believe it, as you obviously do, more power to you. I, on the other hand, prefer to have a more reliable basis for drawing such conclusions.

[Ian David]

16. Okay, here's MY idea for a REAL marriage amendment...

Okay, here's MY idea for a REAL marriage amendment...
Topic started by IanDB1 on Sep-15-05 12:26 PM (19 replies)
Last modified by dickthegrouch on Sep-16-05 04:15 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=16300

See also:


Poll question: What if there were a Federal Civil Union Law?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=11212

[Mass]

17. I like your definition - My only pb is with 7 and 8.

I do not see any reason why somebody licensed by the state to perform marriage should object performing a civil marriage. In this case, can somebody who objects to interracial marriages refuse to perform one?

For the rest, I think it is a great idea.

[Ian David]

19. I tried to negate all the so-called "concerns" of the alarmists...

by addressing them.

Supposedly, they're afraid that their church / mosque / synagogue / coven might be sued by someone to force them to bless marriages they're offended by. So, I addressed that.

Personally, I think a Justice of The Peace has no more business being "offended" by a marriage, than the guy at The Registry of Motor Vehicles has to be offended by giving a driver's license to Jews who drive on Sunday.

But, since "being forced to perform duties they deem religiously offensive" is one of their concerns, I included escape clauses for them, just so they'd have nothing left to argue about, except "my invisible friend in the sky says he doesn't like it."

[karynnj]

36. The reason it makes sense

is that some people who are able to officiate at marriages are religious. I know that most rabbis will not participate in a wedding that is not between 2 Jews. (there are some rabbis, who I think are not affiliated who do it).

I think that eliminating this provision would lose the support of many moderates. I consider myself liberal, but I would vote against it. Just as an inter-relligious couple need to find a priest/rabbi/minister or use a justice of the peace, a gay couple should have to do the same thing. You are asking for major trouble if you demand a priest or rabbi be forced by law to do something against their religious beliefs.

The key is to insure that there is at least 1 person legally able to officiate who is willing to. Frankly, I would want the person officiating at such a personal important service to be wholeheartedly happy for me - as our rabbi was.

[Totally Committed]

22. She's pandering. Just in time for all those Liberal Democrats who dominate the

Presidential Primary elections. How convenient. How transparent.

Ugh.

TC

[CTD]

26. Bingo. She'll say anything if she thinks it'll get her more votes.

She rivals Lieberman in terms of her lack of conviction. And like him, she is all about the power.

[Telly Savalas]

92. If she's trying to pander to liberals, then why isn't she a vocal opponent of

the Iraqi occupation?

[geek tragedy]

29. A two-fer: She believes in evolution as well as gay marriage.

Go Hill!

[Critters2]

47. She believes in whatever will get her votes

Stay home Hill!

[mmonk]

30. Better late than never. Best said in public to set the tone

of acceptance.

[closeupready]

32. Well, I don't care if it's pandering - I like it.

Equally important is the need for her to repudiate the War in Iraq, but on this issue, I give her a thumb's up for showing more courage than a lot of dems have done. :)

[AtomicKitten]

33. The doling out of selective mercy here is amazing.

I know I am perceived as the antiChrist by the go-Kerry crowd, but I recall quite vividly in the 2004 debates Kerry saying he'd accelerate the war by putting in 40,000 more troops, and when asked if knowing the same info he knows today would he still vote yes on the war, he answered yes.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/John-Kerry-Iraq28feb04.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/kerr-f19.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2105096/

In light of the above, one could also say he stuck his finger in the wind and has changed course as public opinion has changed on Iraq.

The above about-face is a good thing.

What I have a problem with are those that cannot perceive Hillary's evolution on this very important issue at hand as a good thing. She's labeled a hypocrite and insincere. I suggest those unwilling to spread the grace among politicians might be eligible for the criticism of being hypocritical and insincere themselves.

We should applaud a politician moving left - always - under any circumstances because it is a good thing.

[closeupready]

34. Exactly.

Now, we can argue about whether or not that particular candidate is the best DEM for the job, sure; but when the dem we have moves in a direction which brings them closer to the dem side and away from the puke position, we should encourage that.

[madfloridian]

35. Selective mercy, my hind foot.

Her husband was working behind the scenes to bring Dean down as a candidate for president, saying he "forfeited the right" to be president for signing the civil unions bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2908932&mesg_id=2909006

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Why does she need to be responsible for the actions of her husband?

Are they the same person?

[madfloridian]

38. As she runs for president....

it will be on the table.

Her husband worked behind the scenes to hurt someone who signed a civil unions bill. Now that all this is coming to the front again, it should not nor can it be ignored.

Asking if they are the same person is not really the issue. If she runs and wins, he will be back in the white house. But the injustice of what he did just before Iowa needs to be aired. Just because it means being honest and clear.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. He won't be back in the white house anymore than Theresa Heinz Kerry would've been

If Kerry had been elected. And the GOP used her as a reason people shouldn't vote for Kerry, which was absolutely ridiculous IMO.

[madfloridian]

67. ? Not about Kerry....I was talking about Bill Clinton.

And I thought he gave us good years when he was president. However, what he did behind the scenes to hurt someone who was doing what he had to do was terrible.

The issue of gay civil unions and marriage and the voice of the former president nearly destroyed a man who wanted to bring change to the party.

There should be no more of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Okay, but Hillary shouldn't have to repent for Bill's actions

That's my point.

[AZBlue]

40. Oh, come on AK, you know the rules:

Once you jump on the anit-Hillary bandwagon you are not. allowed. off! Their motto is: damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, damn her!

[Critters2]

48. Why you want off the anti-Hillary bandwagon?

It's the reasonable place to be.

[AZBlue]

86. I wouldn't even dream of looking at it -

let alone getting on it.

[karynnj]

66. Ignoring your OT Kerry attack,

which, as usual distorts his positions and motivation, I think
Hillary's comments are only a mild change and one that most people in hers (and my) generation have made over the same time interval. Ridgidly sticking to a POV that you have outgrown is stupid. I'm glad she said what she did. My guess is that NY is likely to follow NJ soon.

[AtomicKitten]

68. color me surprised

... that you would think documented evidence is a distortion and your subjective analysis is gospel truth.

Stunned I tell you.

[karynnj]

69. Your first 2 links say

Kerry wants the army expanded by 40,000 because it is overstreched. They do NOT say that he wants 40,000 people added IN IRAQ. I actually read the Worcester speech in 2005 - and know what it said. (also can't you get more mainstream than the Socialist Workers Party????)

As to motivation - Kerry was calling for withdrawal in 12-15 month in Oct 2005 - at a point where few other than Feingold had called for similar time frames. This DROVE opinion rather than followed it.

Why you feel the need to attack Kerry - on Iraq - on a thread on Hillary and gay marriage is beyond me. I don't see ANY Kerry people attacking Hillary here.

[AtomicKitten]

71. It was an analogy

(with documentation) comparing the treatment of politicians here at DU, a valid comparison pointing out the disparity of grace dished out here with the most anorexic of rationalizations. My point was crystal clear and that was politicians moving to the left is a good thing.

Not everything is about you and your "people." Although you construe even the mention of JK an attack and feel the need to cluster**** anyone issuing a real or imagined slight, that really, and I mean this sincerely, is your problem.

Here's a newsflash for you, he was our nominee in 2004 and a possible contender in 2008, therefore, open for discussion.

You and your "people" are not the thought police here at DU, yet you gather like chumming the waters each time JK's name is mentioned. It's really tiresome.

[karynnj]

93. I did not "construe even a mention of JK an attack"

Your post was plain and simple an attack - it was not a case where Kerry was simply mentioned. You said, "In light of the above, one could also say he stuck his finger in the wind and has changed course as public opinion has changed on Iraq."

That is not only an attack, but an extremely damning one. Did you see his response to Allard saying essentially the same thing? His reaction and the reactions of other Senators to Kerry's impassioned smackdown shows what he thinks of that allegation. Did you listen to the Senate floor debate between Republican Senators Warner and Kerry - it was very clear that Warner knew and respected that Senator Kerry's proposals were thoughtful, detailed and real? The situation in Iraq is not a game or partisan politics for either of these Senators who know what's at stake.

Senator Kerry has gone to Iraq, spoken to Generals and strategists and made at least 2 serious proposals, both introduced as legislation. Both were offered when the positions were NOT yet accepted by the population. Senator Kerry's MANY Oct-Dec 2005 TV and radio appearances did have an impact in changing the opinions of many people. He was able to get people to see that the US was performing functions that fueled hatred for America while costing the lives of our soldiers. Kerry was a month before Murtha - who's plan was less developed. From April through June, Senators Kerry and Feingold forced the argument on Iraq - Reid, Schumer and the Clintons did not want this issue raised. I heard Kerry in Faneuil Hall on April 22 and Sept 9 state that he would NOT be a Senator who didn't challange a policy that was not working. Senator Kerry's efforts on this are matched by very few others - this is not a case where he simply told a reporter, "I changed my position."

Of course, Senator Kerry is up "for discussion", but discussion should include both sides. You posted and BLM and I disagreed - that is a discussion. You want to be able to make what was a very negative comment that assigns a very irresponsible motivation to Senator Kerry's actions on Iraq and then play the victim when challanged. You attacked the "Kerry people" in your first post even though we were not dominant among the critics. You later ignored that I defended Senator Clinton's shift. Why are you making this a vendetta, when it wasn't? We get that you hate Kerry - though you said you didn't in a PM - but why bring it up in totally unrelated thread?

My feelings on this are best expressed by a scene in Hard Day's Night. As John Lennon said; "You can’t win with his sort, after all it’s his train—isn’t it, mister?” “Come on, let’s go and have some coffee and leave the kennel to Lassie.”

[AtomicKitten]

95. see #94

Your hypersensitivity towards your favorite candidate precludes you from exhibiting any reason in this discussion. I used a valid analogy that punctuated my point that both Senators Kerry and Clinton should be given equal grace for changing their minds and moving left. The fact that you construe that as an attack on one and not the other is indicative of someone that needs a time out to rethink the logic of that.

[karynnj]

102. Your post was about more than your

less than brilliant analogy.

First off - look at my original response it DOES support with grace and NO SNARK Hillary's shift.

Second: reread my last post - YOU showed NO GRACE in inferring motivation to Kerry's positions on Iraq that changed with facts on the ground. You absolutely don't get that Kerry is trying to recommend solutions to the current situation - not changing his mind on a static situation. You also ignore that Kerry spoke against invading before Bush did - when 60+% of people were for invasion. He called for "regime change at home" after the invasion when 70+% of people were in favor of the invasion.

Hillary said she changed her mind - and it is a move to the left. As I said, this is a normal change in position that the country as a whole is making. Kerry's position on Iraq is not a "change of mind" it is a response to the facts on the ground.

You say:
"The fact that you construe that as an attack on one and not the other is indicative of someone that needs a time out to rethink the logic of that. " suggests a person who can't comprehend that the attack you made is the assignment of sinister political motivation to Kerry which neither you or I did to Hillary. My logic is fine. If YOU don't see an attack then you are blind to the inference of your own comment and you need a time out before you attack Kerry or other Democrats without intending to do so again.

[AtomicKitten]

104. stick a fork in it

I have no interest in reading your convoluted dissertation on a very simple point.

If you can't muster the grace to acknowledge the fact that both Senators have changed their minds for the better, that's your problem. It's as simple as that.

As always, I know how important it is for you to have the last word; it is yours.

[blm]

74. And YOU'D be WRONG, again. In 2004 you could still SECURE IRAQ by the

addition of more troops, and Kerry would do it to stabilize Iraq so UN and NATO could come into the country and take the US occupation label off of the troops by turning over Bush's Permanent bases.

After the Iraqis held THREE elections throughout 2005 and a governing body was formed is when Kerry said a withdrawal plan was needed.

But then, you were never big on actual DETAILS and significant differences in circumstances in Iraq after they held three elections, anyway.

Of course, you're welcome to try and make the case that circumstances DIDN'T change on the ground in Iraq from fall of 2004 to Nov 2005 when Kerry drafted his first withdrawal plan after spending time in Iraq in Sept 2005.

[AtomicKitten]

75. You are beyond wrong.

There is plenty of documentation out there to support my point (google is your nemesis) plus we all actually watched the debates and read the transcripts plus he did say he'd vote yes again (he HAS evolved, but he DID issue those bullet points once), but AS USUAL you convolute and twist and microwave and massage facts and turn yourself into a pretzel to try to do whatever the hell you are trying to do, pretending you have a point when you don't, and it would behoove you to for once just STFU, but, no, you just can't help yourself.

You are beyond wrong; your rationalizations are impulsive. And thanks for punctuating my point that some people bend over backwards rationalizing on behalf of their favorite politician yet are ALWAYS first in line to comment negatively on others.

My point stands. When a politician moves to the left, that's a good thing.

Have a great weekend.

[blm]

91. HAHAH...sure... Sept. 2004 is the exact same circumstance as Oct. 2005

Right....and that's why you were unable to prove that Kerry's withdrawal plan came from putting his finger in the wind.

In fact, Kerry was the FIRST to proffer a withdrawal plan and it came from discussions with commanders on the ground in Iraq and with newly elected Iraqi parliamentary officials not associated with Bush WH...and that was in September 2005.

He worked on the plan and offered it last week of Octaober 2005.

HE took the slings and arrows of cut and run for the past year, along with Murtha. YOU want to pretend it was mere politics because it serves YOUR agenda against Kerry.

Kerry has been involved in many earlier campaigns to bring about end to wars, major and minor wars, legal and illegal wars. It's WHO HE IS. Saying Kerry put his finger in the wind on something that's long been part of his DNA is absurd.

You must have some glorious record of achievement for this country to take the shots you do at Kerry - you should share them with us sometime.

[AtomicKitten]

94. I can only assume you are having difficulty reading.

In 2004 as my links indicated and as we all heard before the election, JK did advocate adding 40,000 more troops in Iraq and he also said he would vote yes again on the IWR.

That was 2004. It is factual.

My point seems to sail right over your head. My point is his evolution from that POV to now. He was once at that point, something I think we will all be interested in you denying again and launching into his evolution which actually was my point but you don't seem to grasp it; you want to argue that he has evolved from the point I documented which evades the point that he was there in the first place.

If you are embarrassed because of his position in 2004, that's your problem. Or maybe you just enjoy creating acrimony by throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.

The point I made and will reiterate this one last time for you because your circuitous logic and hammering off-topic talking points are really tiresome, both Senators Kerry and Clinton were at a point much further to the right than they are now, both have changed their minds about issues and have moved to the left, and both should be applauded for that.

It's selective mercy when people are only able to accept that move to the left for some and continue to denigrate others for also changing their mind for the better.

[blm]

98. Circumstances ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ CHANGED from 2004 - 2005 - 2006.

What changed for Hillary? You think she hasn't had opportunity to think equality issues through since Don'T ask, Don't Tell? DOMA? The gay marriage amendments making the rounds in 2004?

It's one thing to say people evolve - we KNOW that. But give more apt comparisons. Iraq withdrawal plans HAD to keep adjusting for new realities on the ground that forced changes.

Gay equality positions, both pro and con, are a circumstance of people's own hearts and minds and political calculations.

Try a shorter reach next time.

[AtomicKitten]

100. that's really lame, you know

You are so enmeshed in this candidate you are reaching to excuse one and not the other. A person's POV changes for a myriad of reasons. Hillary is up for reelection now and comes out with this; I would suggest that that makes it genuine.

The POINT is they have both evolved for the better and you can't muster the grace to acknowledge that.

Try not coming off as such a narrow-minded apologist.

I know how important it is for you to have the last word; it is yours.

[blm]

101. feh

.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. Logical fallacy.

You're talking about Kerry folks. :shrug:














:evilgrin: :sarcasm:? :hide:

[AtomicKitten]

78. let me spell it out for you

If FOR INSTANCE people are willing to accept and embrace Kerry's change in his stance on Iraq, then it's only fair that they do the same for Hillary's change in her stance on gay rights, both serious issues to most of us.

It's really a pretty basic notion.

Everything isn't about the Kerry people versus the world, you know. What this is about is embracing ANY politician that veers to the left. Sheesh.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

79. Let me spell it out for YOU.

Both were politically motivated.
Both happened at election time.

1+1=2

Sheesh.

[AtomicKitten]

83. No shit, Sherlock

The POINT is the evolution of these politicians to the left is a GOOD THING and something to be embraced.

Sheesh indeed.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

85. Is it an evolution if it happens only in even-numbered years?

Or is it Lamarckism?

[AtomicKitten]

96. It occurs when

politicians say things before an election because of an election, which is unfortunate. But on the upside, it is an evolution nonetheless.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

103. Any evidence of a pre-election "evolution" becoming policy?

Besides Nixon's "Secret Plan."

[AtomicKitten]

105. I long for a politician to not fear the repercussions

of saying what they really mean and feel. RFK was one of those good men.

[mtnsnake]

80. here here! AK hits the nail on the head again!

:thumbsup:

[BoneDaddy]

39. She is a PURE politician

but no dummy by any stretch. She and her team have a finger on the pulse of every group out there. My guess is that they often monitor message boards like this and can see that she is even hotly debated as a viable candidate among liberal progressives. She may have realized that she needs to appeal to her own democratic party and stop chasing the people right of center.

[hijinx87]

44. and the is precisely what it will take to win . . .

in 2008. and this lady is hard as nails.

[Critters2]

46. We've run pure politicians--you know, the electable ones---

and all it's done is cost us elections. I wish she would just stay in the Senate and STFU. We need to run someone who actually believes something.

[hijinx87]

49. the last pure politician I remember running

was her husband. and he served two terms in the white house.

I'm sorry, but nothing succeeds like success.

[Critters2]

50. I think the whole "electability" meme is about running pure politicians

and that's served us well. :eyes:

[madfloridian]

51. Is this what a "pure politician" does?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2908932&mesg_id=2909006

[hijinx87]

52. oh, wait a minute . . . .

(not to evade your point)

but in another thread a few weeks ago (or so) I got hooted down when I said that I thought clark was a clinton maneuver to derail howard dean.

[madfloridian]

53. yeh, well, I get hooted down a lot.

I am used to it.

[hijinx87]

55. oh. well in that case . . .

maybe we should stop bringing it up? :evilgrin:

kidding. it flatly happened.

[BoneDaddy]

82. uh ya

we will lose in 08' again.

[tishaLA]

57. At least she didn't go on the 700 Club

and radically rewrite the Democratic Party's platform on LGBT issues.

I believe people can change their minds....

[madfloridian]

58. Low blow....Dean had the whole gay community blast him on that.

And they are giving Bill Clinton a pass. And apparently so are you.

Dean apologized for misstating the platform. But he never apologized for appearing there.

You should be ashamed of adding to the shame of what Clinton did.

So tell, why does the gay community give Bill a pass? And why I am attacked why I present the truth.

Go for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2908932&mesg_id=2909006

[tishaLA]

60. I don't give Pres. Clinton a pass at all.

Please don't try to read my thoughts. You should be ashamed for putting words in my mouth.

[madfloridian]

59. In fact, that is a good question...why blast Dean and give Bill a pass?

Those affected by the civil unions spiel Bill made, saying Dean forfeited the right to be president...give Bill a pass. I have seen no criticism of him.

And why aren't you rather alarmed that this was done to a presidential candidate and hurting a whole group of people in the process?

Let's dialogue on this, Tish.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2908932&mesg_id=2909006

[tishaLA]

61. You'll also note that Pres. Clinton's statement--

if he really made it--was part of a private conversation, not something broadcast into homes across the nation. And his was an opinion, not a radical misrepresentation of the Democratic Party's Platform. And Pres. Clinton doesn't have any real power, except as a figurehead. The other person, in contrast, is the chairman of the party--at the very moment he lies about the party's platform.

I'll have you know that Pres. Clinton twice yelled at me--and once said "fuck you" to me--when I was demonstrating against him precisely because of his policy on LGBT and HIV/AIDS issues. I never gave him a pass.

[karynnj]

73. In fairness, he had power when he signed DOMA

He also complained aftern Nov 2004, that Kerry didn't take his advice to endorse all th egay bashing amendments - even though many took away rights that gays had worked hard gerryrigging for themselves. Kerry had the itegrity to reject it out of hand.

Senator Clinton seems more enlightened.

[tishaLA]

76. I agree with you

and I spoke out then.

I don't think we disagree about this at all.

[IndianaGreen]

108. Clinton signed DOMA because he didn't think LGBT rights were more important

than his right as a hetero male to dip his wick in forbidden waters.

[madfloridian]

84. A very powerful "figurehead".

A "private" conversation like that has need to be shared, especially when it is suspected it played over and over in other instances.

As I said above...a former president either working for you or working against you can greatly sway things. A huge responsibility goes with that. A large number of people were being drawn back into the party, and Bill Clinton's actions had some negative impact.

He was working behind the scenes about the civil unions bill and how it would affect Dean's being electable. He was no saint on the issue either.

I think it is a fair topic, I really do. One person nearly gets blasted off the planet and the other gets no criticism.

[BoneDaddy]

81. Good

for you.

[ItNerd4life]

62. But, but, I though evolution was a myth?

Or only Democrats can evolve, Repukes still live in caves.

[slackmaster]

65. Pandering to "values voters" wasn't working for her

So now she's going to pander to LGBT voters.

Who could possibly have seen that coming?

:eyes:

[RiverStone]

88. We need to evolve beyond Hillary!

As if she's the presumptive 08 nominee. Why all the attention? What we need is a vigorous debate and a healthy primary process. Obama, Feingold, Clark and Gore (hopefully) et. al may too have something to say about marriage equality (and a whole lot more). Yes, OK, so Hillary Rodham Clinton moved left or is pandering for votes or is tilling the soil for a presidential run. Interesting, but not THAT interesting. There are plenty of other compelling voices in the big vast Dem blue sea. :bounce:

[IndianaGreen]

107. "There are plenty of other compelling voices in the big vast Dem blue sea."

LGBT rights should have been a core issue to Hillary! We have better candidates that understand the difference between a core issue and a passing fancy.

Hillary doesn't get it!

[d_b]

97. It's the pantsuits.

[IndianaGreen]

106. We cannot afford to wait for Hillary to "evolve" on LGBT rights, the war, etc.

Hillary is still trying to have it both ways! She tells small groups of LGBTs that she is "evolving" on what should have been a core issue. This is like hearing segregationist George Wallace say that he no longer supports segregation but sees nothing wrong in "red lining," the practice of keeping Blacks and other minorities from buying homes in white neighborhoods.

Heteros don't read gay publications, so they wouldn't know about Hillary's "evolution" on LGBT marriage rights, and they won't know about it until Hillary speaks out publicly and forcibly on this issue. Hillary won't even use the word "evolve" in public for fear of offending those opposed to the teaching of evolution!

We can ill-afford to wait for Hillary to "evolve" on LGBT rights, the war in Iraq, or anything else. We have better candidates that will be running in 2008 for President that have not waffled on LGBT rights, or on the war.