Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality - Page 2

Hillary's not my candidate, but I can't help thinking that with people having their guts blown out every day in Iraq, Alberto Gonzalez and the administration dodging culpability in the domestic spying snafu, Rove ordering political hatchet jobs on Federal prosecutors and pretty much all the other $#!% going on, this idiotic faux issue makes me want to gag.

Homosexuality is about as immoral as breathing. It's a non-issue. Lip service is pointless. And anything turning on this non-statement statement is absurd.

The problem is a portion of the population (hopefully a small portion, but a portion nonetheless) do believe morality is an issue. It's one of the reasons that Bush, despite all his immense first term failures, defeated Kerry. Yeah, it's totally absurd but that's the political/cultural reality.

I realize that, but all this analysis of semantics, at this moment in time, is not going to help a single individual attain equality among the bigoted in the gp. All it does, imho, is distract from the bigger picture. And no one welcomes that distraction more than Karl Rove, and also the corporate-owned mainstream media, which would rather look at anything but the elephant in the room.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to yt again."

i've always been at a total loss as to why she has any appeal to anyone. even when bill clinton was elected and suddenly the country was optimistic that things would get better, she was just an albatross, fucking up the healthcare thing and generally making herself unwelcome in washington.

to some degree all politicians are full of shit but what has she ever done that at all qualifies her as a presidential candidate? sure it's been 50 years since we voted for people that deserve the office but that doesn't explain how someone that no one seems to like is in the running.

meh, i just don't like her, and i don't know anyone that does. and her husband blew (no pun intended) his chance to make a difference by being a political coward and setting his sights incredibly low, and to some degree i resent both of them for it and don't want to see "Clinton" in a newspaper any more.

I mentioned this in another thread somewhere--my problem with Clinton is, with 99% of politicians, they pander to whatever group they're speaking with at the time--if someone contradicts themselves (which all politicians inevitably do), you can do a little research and see where they stated the opposite of a current opinion maybe a year or so earlier. With Clinton, it seems like you just have to look back 4-5 days to find it. She has definitely not mastered the art of talking out of both sides of her mouth w/out being called on it regularly.

And the sad thing is, we're still 18 months or so away from the next election. This will all get 10x worse by this time next year. Ugh.

And yt's right. It's essentially lame duck time from here on out for the Bush administration, because if any major point comes up, some misstep by a potential 2008 candidate will outshine the current administration's screwup. And since Bush is on the downhill slide, it's "What, me worry?" even moreso than usual.

This and abortion have no business being politicized. I don't like Hillary. She's power hungry just for the sake of it, not interested in making a real difference. Even though her hubby would lie and speak bullshit, he would make you at least for a moment, feel like he gave a shit. She never gives off that vibe.

Her response should have been,

"I have friends who are homosexual and I love them dearly. Anything else, is absolutely NO ONES business. We are too intrusive for a country that prides itself on personal liberty. Being gay is as irrelevant as someones religion. Simply being something doesn't dictate immorality. I think lying about an ill-conceived war is far more offensive."

Thanks, JS. It' s payback for all the times I've gotten that message for you.

Had she said 'Yes, homosexuality is immoral', Fox would brand her as a fag-hater. That they'd be right is sheer coincidence. If she'd said 'No, homosexuality is not immoral', She'd be equally villified as a bad Christian who hates families or something. If she'd said nothing, she'd be branded as cold and aloof. There's no winning for Democrats against the hostile, puerile, and stupid American press.

All due respect yt, but civil rights isn't a faux issue and this is a part of that larger problem. How can we believe that our president will stand up for the rights of its citizens when they're afraid to talk about it? While you say lip-service is pointless, it's just as much lip-service to make a non-statement; you're placating the masses with centrism.

Frankly, I find the issue of Civil Rights much more important than who in the administration outed a spy.

Agree. Civil rights is not a faux issue. The nuances of what Hillary did or didn't say is.

George W. Bush talks about his love of the environment, his commitment to education, his deep concern for the unemployed, the troops, the poor, immigrants, seniors, etc etc. ad infinitum. He has been "elected" twice and been more destructive to all the things he claims to care about than anyone within a 100-year radius. So, there's somebody who is not afraid to talk about the issues.

"Centrism" is exactly why Hillary is not my candidate. Actions speak louder than words. But my point is that Rove and his ilk like to steer the narrative toward what works for their agendas. Arguing about what Hillary meant, and what it says about her, does nothing constructive for anyone. It only moves the spotlight away for a moment from the things that really matter, issues which don't necessarily serve Rove and others' agenda.

But does what Hillary says or doesn't say really have %$#*-all to do with civil rights? Seriously. My point isn't that the hideous abuse and discrimination against anyone who doesn't put on the mask of White Moral Christian isn't an issue. My point is that a tempest in a teapot about what a candidate did or didn't say, in light of all the time-sensitive $#!& going on in the world right now, is a waste of airtime, a waste of talk time. It's an anemic spark that people with agendas will fan to generate enough smoke to obscure real issues -- such as actual civil rights, for instance. Where are all the talking heads when actual civil rights abuses occur, which they do every day? Isn't that important enough to cover with round-the-clock news reports?