|
Video Blogs
More Video
TV Shows
Navigation |
Live Blogging Logo's "Visible Vote," Part 4: Hillary Rodham ClintonLast but not least: New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary's wearing a bright orangish satiny jacket. She seems very at ease as she enters the studio and shakes hands and smiles at people. Margaret's first comment is, "I like the coral jacket." Oy. I know I've been mentioning everyone's fashion, but Margaret hasn't mentioned anybody's fashion except for Hillary's. I have mixed feelings about this, but no time to get into it!
Joe gets the first question, about Don't Ask Don't Tell. Why haven't you introduced legislation to repeal DADT? Hillary first thanks everyone quickly and then says, "We didn't have a chance." She says she wants to get it done when she's president. She's very convincing. Go Hillary! Hey, Asian American woman is fully onscreen now. Damn, Hillary's good — she's pointing out Staff Sergeant Eric Alva in the audience while she talks about Don't Ask Don't Tell; he was the first marine wounded in Iraq. Was he a Clinton campaign placement or does she really have that ability to pick people out under the hot studio lights and identify them correctly while answering political questions? Possibly both. She points out that Don't Ask Don't Tell was an advance from previous practices, but it wasn't implemented appropriately and was always supposed to be a transitional thing. In 1999, she says she came out against Don't Ask Don't Tell, and that she remembers the "intense debates" about this in '93 (yep, remind us of your experience, check). She says General Powell is starting to rethink it. She wants to lay the groundwork, but then when she's president she'll get it done. Joe asks: What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage? Hillary: "Well, Joe I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions." Everybody laughs. I think that's really quite a sophisticated way to answer, actually. It's as if she's acknowledging that this is a spin she's putting on the issue, and that it's a spin that has to be done in this cultural and political climate. But then she goes on to say that her opposition is a "personal position." She goes into how she wants states to maintain jurisdiction over marriage. She says she wants to repeal section 3 of Defense of Marriage. She basically avoids the question. Joe asks if she can sympathize with the frustration over the position that it's a strates' rights issue — in the civil rights movement that same position was seen as a red herring. Basically, don't you get it? Hillary says she "abolutely" gets the frustration, and she respects the advocacy they're doing on behalf of marriage and is "very much impressed by the intensity and the persistence" of the advocacy. But, she says, people in the states are moving more rapidly at the state level than at the federal level. She keeps hammering home how she fought to get the federal marriage amendment off the ballot. She says she doesn't know if they could have defeated the amendment if they didn't have DOMA. She slams into the Republicans and Bush who "cynically use marriage as a political tool." She makes the lack of support of gay marriage sound good! How do you do it, Hillary? Melissa then talks about how she came out when Bill Clinton was inaugurated, how she (and many gay folks) were very hopeful at that time but in the years that followed, their hearts were broken and promises made to us weren't kept. She says she understands politics and how hard it is to bring about change, but what are you gonna do to be different from that? Watch the video: Hillary says she doesn't see it quite the way Melissa does, but she respects her feelings about it; she talks in a very intimate tone about all the stuff that she thinks Clinton did for the gay community. "I believe there was a lot of honest effort going on," she says earnestly. Melissa pushes her: "Why not be a leader now?" Hillary says, "I think I am a leader now." I sense a slight bit of defensiveness, but then Hillary says that if she were in Melissa's shoes, having gone through the coming-out process and cancer, etc., she knows that time moves quickly and she'd want to see change right away. She understands and wishes it could happen as well. Hillary seems really understanding here: telling Melissa (and everyone else) that she understands our desire for rapid change, but the world as it is doesn't always allow that. As president, she thinks she has an opportunity to reverse the assault on people in general — a demeaning, degrading, mean-spirited kind of thing. "That will end; that is over," Hillary insists to loud applause. Memories of the impeachment, anyone? As the forum wraps up, Margaret Carlson says that Hillary told the AFL-CIO the other night that she was their girl. Does she want to say the same to the Logo audience? Hillary responds with a grin, "I'm your girl!" I think you meant "grrrl," Hillary. To watch more videos from Visible Vote 08, go here. Submitted by on August 10, 2007 - 12:18am. |
User login
Recent blog posts
Recent comments
|
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
Go Hillary!
Words cannot describe my intense admiration for this human being. I remember doing a report on her in middle school (yes, I'm 26) when her husband was elected president and I've been a strong supporter ever since. She is truly remarkable and I thought she was incredible tonight -- intelligent, compassionate, eloquent, and accessible. I wish I could have gone to the event with her at the Abbey! She's definitely a hero of mine. I would LOVE for her to be my president.
(By the way I think the "coral jacket" comment was referencing the CNN YouTube debate, although it did come across as sexist...but of course, President, I mean Senator Clinton laughed it off gracefully.)
Senator Clinton, if you read this (by some chance) you were wonderful tonight and you absolutely have my vote. You are such an inspiration!
PS
Check out Brent Hartinger's take on the Forum on After Elton. It's pretty insightful.
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/brenthartinger/clinton-solid-edwards-slick-obama-nervous
I don't know
people may say that I’m too young to know what I’m talking about, but I personally will not support a candidate who cannot give a better reason other than “personal” for opposing gay marriage. her decision to be against gay marriage is purely political, and I would much rather have a president that says and does what he or she believes rather than doing what will give them more political power. I can honestly say that Dennis Kucinich blew me away tonight. right now, he may be standing pretty low in the polls, but I would give him my vote over anyone else because he isn’t afraid to say what he believes. I can find comfort knowing I did the right thing regardless of who wins.
Wouldn't it be great if it
Wouldn't it be great if it is was a yes or no forum?
E.g.
Will you actively be trying to pursue equal rights for the gay community?
Answer: Yes/No
Will you endeavour to make gay marriage legally recognised in all states? That's marriage- not civil unions!
Answer: Yes/No
I understand their reasons why for avoiding the questions, but holy crap is it frustrating!
Great blog Malinda Lo!
What Melissa Meant To Ask
Her question was good, but I think it was a cleverly worded "Are you going to make us promises and then f**** us over once you're elected like Bill Clinton did?"
It's politics
"I'm going to grant 100% equal rights for ALL Americans, and I'm going to make Same-sex MARRIAGE legal!"
As much as I'd like to see a candidate stand up and say those things, (and I believe Kucinich does), I don't believe that candidate could be elected at this point in America.
And so I have to support the best option. I believe that Hillary is the most intelligent, politically savy candidate thus far on the Democratic side. (and I don't consider any Republican an option) And I think that Hillary will work to get as much done for us, as she possibly can get done for us.
The American population is not ready to take us to where we want to be, but I believe Hillary will take us to a place much closer to that destination. She'll drive us toward our goal, not just take us for a ride.
Lisa
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security -- B. Franklin"She'll drive us towards our
"She'll drive us towards our goal, not just take us for a ride"
Very well put!
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
first comment
Long way to 2008 election
The Coral Jacket
I'm with you, Malinda, on the mention of the jacket by Margaret--not just because she singled out the one female candidate to make a style remark to, but because her past relationship with likely GOP contender, Fred Thompson, irks me.
Then, I wondered if I was being overly critical and Margaret was actually being a little cheeky about the whole thing (given the recent stories about Clinton's outfits and cleavage)...and was making reference to a funny Edwards/Clinton/Obama exchange about her jacket during the Youtube debate. Then, I thought, she's probably not that clever.
But I digress...
I've only seen Clinton this comfortable and "laid-back" twice during debate/forum series--first, during the Sojourners forum, and now here. I've been pleasantly surprised. Not enough yet to get over my uneasiness over her positions on Iraq and her piece meal health care plan, but events like this soften my outlook on her.
Great work on the blogging, Malinda!
A Long Way Indeed!
I couldn't believe he post-show commentaries. Please! They were acting just like Msnbc or Cnn. We still have year before the election and all they could talk about were Obama, Edwards and Clinton. The spin doctors. Kucinich loves to talk about his record but if you look closely, he hasn't accomplished much. It's Gravel who needs to be lookd at closely. He has it going on! The big three are sacred of him and that's why they (especially Clinton) tries to keep him out of the debates.
Everybody loves what he says, but the don' think he is electable. That' such a crock! He IS mainstream america. He is electable, all you have to do is vote for him!
www.MikeGravel2008.us
Marriage --
oh Hillary....
I was fine with her early comments on DADT – both why she hasn’t introduced legislation and her defense of it in the political climate of the early 90s. Her support of state rights vs DOMA is indefensible IMO, and makes me wonder how much of that is her attempt to appeal to middle America and maintain her position as a centrist. Her citing DOMA as a rational response/defense against the attempted Federal Marriage Act by Gingrich et al was a bit much for me – now if she'd said “we had to do that to prevent it from being written into the Constitution and I’d work to repeal it,” that would’ve been fine. But to try and defend it, on ANY grounds, esp “state’s rights,” is wrong, IMO.
I said this last nite but it bears repeating since it really pissed me off. Her comments that the fight for gay rights “has not been a long struggle yet…you have to keep doing what you’ve been doing,” is total bullshit. What constitutes an acceptable period of “struggle” before granting equal rights? She places the burden of change squarely on the gay community to "keep fighting" and on individual states (which, despite her contention, are not more progressive on gay rights).
I like that Melissa called her on the perception that the Clinton Admin threw us all under the bus, and while Hillary was right that “change takes time,” she totally ducked the question.
It was nice to see Hillary looking comfortable last nite, but she seemed almost too comfortable – as if she’s sure she has the gay vote sewn up. I don’t like when any pol takes voters for granted.
I think Hillary and Barack’s remarks were the most important since I’m sure one of them will ultimately be the nominee (probably Hillary). And we all knew where Kucinich and Gravel stood on this before last nite. Edwards – I’m not impressed with him. I liked him in ’04 but now he just seems wishy-washy.
And I think I’m done with watching debates for awhile. At least the Democratic ones.
Marriage/Civil Unions Semantics
That's the way I see this anyway, it's all about semantics so middle America is less "up-in-arms" about gay marriage. I for one don't care one way or the other about what it's called, as long as the same rights are conveyed. It's a political ploy to get the same rights for everyone without sending the religious folks compass in a tailspin. There is never going to be a politician that can be all things to all people and they'll never meet the needs of every community so we take what we can a step at a time.
As far as the candidates, I remember when Slick Willy was elected, it was the first major election I was involved in and I remember it the same way Melissa does, we were thrown under the bus. I felt very used because Clinton was the first candidate that seemed to "court" the gay community and then when all was said and done and the votes were tallied, we were forgotten about. However, I can also see Hillary's view of the circumstances, we've had a Republican majority for too many years and in that climate, nothing is going to go our way so the small victories that did come should be cherished.
Her DOMA/FMA answer was a red herring
There was no Federal Marriage Amendment proposed when DOMA passed in the mi-90s. Her answer is revisionist history. DOMA was created because there was a fear that other states would have to recognize other state's passage of marriage equality laws. FMA came later and while it defeated in part because DOMA existed, it is not accurate to say that DOMA existed to stop the FMA.
I have never understood why the gay elite supports Hillary over other more progressive Democrats on this issue. She has never been a leader. In fact, that question about her failure to co-sponsor a repeal of DADT is a good one. She has been one of those people who talks a strong game behind closed doors at the HRC gala dinners, but is timid when it comes to actually doing something. Strangely, I think I have an easier time supporting somebody who is late in coming to understanding the need to support gay rights, than somebody who knows it is important yet is too afraid to do so.
Ah
Ah, you’re right about FMA. I certainly remember what the political climate was like then, and I thought there were at least threats of a constitutional amendment by the Congressional Repubs.
It’s funny, cuz I believed there was a right-wing conspiracy even before Hillary uttered that famous phrase, but I’m sick to death of that as her refrain now - it's become her default reply to everything. And her excuse for her actions (or inaction).
Personally, I think "the gay elite" is way more mainstream than most people realize. And the common denominator among the political "gay elite?" Power and money. People will always try to maintain their wealth and power, at the expense of pretty much everything else. Just my jaded opinion.
Hillary is a career politician
Her comments about states' rights are classic federalism a la Justice Brandeis, recognizing the wisdom of letting the states form a laboratory before the federal government steps in to do what's right. It has always been a lot easier and more defensible for the federal government to correct a wrong than blaze a trail. You can call it circumspect or cowardly, but you can also call it clever and comprehensive. And above all, you can call it lawyerly, and I'm thrilled to think our next president may be a lawyer (be it Clinton or Obama). I don't know who else can make sense of the legal quagmires into which the Bush yes-men, particularly my-gut-is-the-Constitution Cheney, have dumped us.
I want a president who knows the game, inside and out and for better and for worse. Someone who speaks in paragraphs, not run-on sentences. Someone whose brain is as big as the world that challenges her.
I'm for Hillary.
Ok, different tack.
Ok, different tack. I don’t object to a “career politician” being the next President. In fact, I think we damn sure need one to untangle the mess we’re currently in. And while I may quibble over differences between the Democratic candidates, the differences between them are relatively minor (esp Hill, Barack, Edwards). All agree the war needs to end, all agree we need healthcare reform, all agree we need to protect the environment, all agree on basic notions of “equality,” etc. Any of the main Dem candidates are orders of magnitude above the Republicans, IMO.
The one thing I’ve maintained all along is that at least these candidates are intelligent. And that’s a lot more than we’ve seen in 7 years and something we desperately need. All things considered, I will happily pull the lever for either Barack or Hillary (and I actually like that Bill will be going back to the WH with her)!
As far as tactics and
As far as tactics and strategy go I think it's a real plus Clinton knows what it is like to actually be in the white house and what gets thrown at you then!
I believe a lot of what is perceived as cop outs or sell outs are a result of this experience! I have the impression she is determined not to let the same thing happen as what happened to her husband.
As an outside observer I think what was done by the neo-conservatives was a deliberate and highly sucessful effort to make it impossible for an elected president to actually do anything. And I can't believe people are now blaming the Clinton's for this, rather than the people who then put an actually unelected frontman in the white house!
And what's worse, this neo-conservative crap then pretty quickly spread all over western Europe too. As a European I pray to god the next American president will be a democrat and preferably someone like Clinton who is wise to the neo-conservative tactics!
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
Eric Alva
In answer to your question, she probably recognized him from previous meetings. Staff Sgt. Alva is the new face of the HRC's campaign to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, and he has testified before Congress several times. Currently, he and other out members of the military are on a sort of press tour with HRC in an effort to educate the public about the law and the reasons why it hurts everyone to keep it in place.
Other than Jane Lynch and a couple others, Sgt. Alva was the only other person in the audience I recognized, so it is quite possible and even likely that Hillary knew him without him being a plant.
"Brains grow love."--H. H. the Dalai Lama
http://blog.myspace.com/ysubassoon
I wanted a debate not a forum.
I would have rather seen an official political debate. To me the "forum" format was dreary and unexciting. And if Melissa had said once more that she was so humbled and gratified that the candidates chose to participate, I would have had to mute her. I mean saying thank you is all well and fine, but bowing and scraping like that was appalling. Is there NO other high profile lesbian to tap for such things?! Sigh.
As far as Hilary goes, I think she is avoiding making excessive promises to the GLBT community for fear of breaking more hearts. I don't blame her really. And I find it facinating that she doesn't attempt to point out the she was not President during her hubby Bill's terms and that those issues wasn't her fault. That says alot about her for me, as does the fact that while she points out the rabid dog Republican congress being a road block, she doesn't also point out that much of Bills time was diverted for personal matters such as watergate and Monica. Much of his social agenda suffered for those matters.