Proud as I was to call him my President, I acknowledge that Bill Clinton could be a slippery bastard. Parsing
the meaning of "is," and finessing whether he had affairs with "I have acknowledged causing pain in my marriage," and so on.
Given the relentless slash-and-burn politics of today's rightwing machine, and the utterly debased governance they're guaranteed to usher in every chance they get, one can forgive — and even recommend — a little of the old soft-shoe on occasion.
But this sidestep by the other Clinton who would be president is something else altogether:
Asked on ABC News today if she agreed with General Pace's view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said: "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude." She added, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."
This isn't bobbing and weaving to divert a personal-life "gotcha" attack. She's hanging one in ten Americans out to dry, because she doesn't want to offend a few bigots.
Since Hillary leaves it up to others to conclude what's moral, I'll be sure to let her know on primary day.
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
This is not triangulation, this is hanging your base out to dry
In abstract terms, I could sure do with a lot less moralizing from everybody, so "leaving that to others" as a generic, context-free statement is OK.
But when your friends are under attack, caving to the forces that are attacking them isn't an option. Eh?
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Exactly
No doubt she thought it was a clever dodge, but imagine if your "friend" dodged a question about whether your lifestyle were immoral?
Such a question is a huge opportunity for a politician to show a little character, and Hillary fouled out.
www.vastleft.com
here's the test: imagine if an prominent atheist had called for
the exclusion of all christians from government on the grounds that they can't be trusted to make decisions based on reality. imagine it got a lot of play in the media. who here thinks hillary would've hesistated to defend the right of christians to be in office? forcefully?
hillary: the conservative republican nominee. bank on it.
trying to understand this kind of comment
The hateful comments, the bad language, the accusations,
the over the top critisims, the constant whining, blaming
excessively, and so on.
Result: The accusers are worse than the accused.
Wow, a concern troll
Anonymous:
I'm looking at the comments, and I don't see anything hateful.
Do you go around to various non-winger blogs and simply paste this comment in without reading the posts?
Just asking.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Good point, Anonymous
I do believe you are correct when you end your random diatribe with...
www.vastleft.com
bad language? anon, clearly you are a newbie here
this post is mild by the standards of what we often do.
trust me, if hillary gets the nom and sells us out as much as i fear, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
cover your ears: fuck triangulating conservative democrats. now go run along to your mommy.
Last I checked, I hadn't voted for Iraq or tortured anybody
Or replaced Constitutional government with authoritarian rule.
So in what way do "bad words" make me worse than the people I accuse?
Say Fuck proudly!
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi