Clinton

I don't know how anyone with a conscience could vote for her.
She says what she thinks people want to hear to get what she wants and nothing else.
This is not isolated, it is common.

Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality
POSTED: 1449 GMT (2249 HKT), March 15, 2007
Story Highlights
• Clinton now says she "does not share [Pace's] view, plain and simple"
• Clinton avoided question on whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral
• "I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said when asked by ABC News
• Clinton recently told gay-rights activists she was proud to stand by their side

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a question about whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral Wednesday, less than two weeks after telling gay-rights activists she was "proud" to stand by their side.

Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace's controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral.

"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said.

Pace told the Chicago Tribune on Monday he supports the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

"My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace told the Tribune. "I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct."

Pace also told the paper, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts."

Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reins, said the New York senator "obviously" disagrees with Pace and that everyone, including the general, "has the right to be wrong, but should not inject their personal beliefs into public policy."

Then Wednesday night, the campaign released a statement from the senator herself, saying, "I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple."

"It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world," Clinton said.

However, it's her initial refusal to answer the question that did not sit well with some gay and lesbian activists.

"I assume that Senator Clinton -- who has spoken out strongly against military discrimination, who stands for civil unions and respect for same-sex couples -- understands that gay Americans are not immoral, and she ought to say so clearly," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group that advocates same-sex marriage.

Other public figures have been more forceful in taking issue with Pace's comments, making Clinton's non-answer even more problematic.

Sen. John Warner, a conservative Republican from Virginia, said, "I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

John Edwards, one of Clinton's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, said, "I don't share that view," when asked about Pace's comments.

Less than two weeks ago, Clinton received a standing ovation when she addressed the leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group.

In her remarks, Clinton expressed strong support for a litany of gay-rights initiatives, including extending civil unions and domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples and allowing them to adopt children. She said she would work to pass a federal law outlawing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and propose another measure extending benefits to the partners of federal employees.

"We want to make sure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits, from health insurance and life insurance to Social Security and property rights and more," she said.

Clinton also said she thinks the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which keeps gay men and lesbians from serving in the military if they publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation, should be repealed. The policy was put in place in 1993 by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

"It hurts all of our troops, and this, to me, is a matter of national security," she said.

The senator even said she "loved the fact" that she and Human Rights Campaign share the initials HRC.

Noting her work with the HRC to defeat a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Clinton said, "This is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am president."

"I am proud to stand by your side," she said. "Just as you always have an open door to my Senate office, you will always have an open door to the White House."

Given those remarks, Clinton's decision not to directly answer the question put by ABC News was seen by some analysts as a sign her campaign is so controlled and scripted that it's difficult for her to be spontaneous.

"Senator Clinton's style is one of caution," said Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report.

"She doesn't like to shoot from the hip. She's just not that kind of politician. I don't think she's comfortable doing that."

CNN's Carol Costello contributed to this report

[richlevy]

Unfortunately, at some point in the campaign the only honest candidates left are those that know they can't win. Mr. 'plain talk' himself, John McCain, has been dipping his toes into the conservative base mud puddle.

McCain was one of my crossover candidates. Not so sure now.

[piercehawkeye45]

Who likes Clinton? She is higher in the polls but I have yet to meet someone that supports her.

[elSicomoro]

As a liberal, I find her way too divisive. If she were to be elected, her presidency would be as useless as...well, the current one's. And for once, I don't mean this as a slap in the face to Dubya. His presidency has been so contentious for this country...even more so than Clinton's. I really think we need a president that will finally--finally--bring us closer together as a people. This hard core divisiveness started in the run up to the impeachment, IMO...hell, it might actually have started during the '92 elections. And it's just gotta stop. How we can truly be a world leader when we can't even come to a reasonable consensus on who we want to lead us?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Who likes Clinton? She is higher in the polls but I have yet to meet someone that supports her.

I know some Democrats who love Hillary. They were absolutely shocked when I told them how she is generally perceived outside the party. They try to attribute it to America not being ready for a woman President. They don't get it because they believe in their hearts that she'll only do things they support even though she'll say anything.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is also the, at least she's white, contingency.

Originally Posted by Griff

I know some Democrats who love Hillary. They were absolutely shocked when I told them how she is generally perceived outside the party. They try to attribute it to America not being ready for a woman President. They don't get it because they believe in their hearts that she'll only do things they support even though she'll say anything.

Wow, I wonder what they base that on?

[Griff]

It is the same as a libertarian voting for Bush. He sounded a little like one in the run up to the election using some of the language making folks feel comfortable assuming how he'd act etc..but they are both megalomaniacs.

(this happens with every politician to some degree its just that these two are particularly disconnected from the language they use.)

[WabUfvot5]

She's polling a distant 3rd (behind Edwards and Obama) on the extreme left-wing terrorist-sympathizing baal-worshiping baby-eating liberal blog Dailykos. Every month sees her lose more support with her pandering.

[Undertoad]

Worse than that - running fourth at dkos, and also on mydd.com, behind Richardson's third.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Says it all, doesn't it?

It's the not-real people who support this Saul Alinsky disciple.

The real people yearn for a Democrat who could both win an election and win the war on terror.

Looks like they can whistle for him, and frankly pinning their hopes on a Democrat to behave in the Republic's interest is pinning the tail on a donkey that isn't there. And isn't there for us, either.

People who are realer yet are looking for warfighters, inasmuch as we are engaged in a war. Dumbass Dems are avoiding seeing that.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I don't know how anyone with a conscience could vote for her.
She says what she thinks people want to hear to get what she wants and nothing else.
This is not isolated, it is common.

Originally Posted by sycamore

As a liberal, I find her way too divisive. If she were to be elected, her presidency would be as useless as...well, the current one's. And for once, I don't mean this as a slap in the face to Dubya. His presidency has been so contentious for this country...even more so than Clinton's. I really think we need a president that will finally--finally--bring us closer together as a people. This hard core divisiveness started in the run up to the impeachment, IMO...hell, it might actually have started during the '92 elections. And it's just gotta stop. How we can truly be a world leader when we can't even come to a reasonable consensus on who we want to lead us?

I am in agreement with what you say yet.... I think she would make a good president.


She is just playing the game and I know we are tired of political games but she can't win playing clean. Can anyone these days?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I am in agreement with what you say yet.... I think she would make a good president.

Well, one thing that she has is a strong machine already in place. If she won, the transition would be a fast one. And she would have lots of advisers to help her. That's the nicest thing I can think of to say about her.

[Trilby]

Well, we all know candidates never, ever side step direct questions OR pander to every group out there. She's the first.

[TheMercenary]

She will not make a good president. I would love to see her defeated in the primaries. I will not vote for her.