The LGBT-left blog Towleroad posted on LGBT Advocates Steam Over One-Sided ‘Washington Post’ Article on Hillary Clinton’s Gay Rights Record. I read the Washington Post article and thought it was ultimately a celebration of Clinton’s evolution, despite the promising— and certainly accurate—headline that “Hillary Clinton had the chance to make gay rights history. She refused.”
The Post article made clear that Clinton has now adopted a position of strong advocacy for LGBT rights within the context of the progressive agenda. But any criticism of Hillary, even pointing out her prior opposition to same-sex marriage and public acquiescence to the Defense of Marriage Act and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, is anathema to the political operatives who helm the biggest LGBT lobbies, which are firmly joined at the hip to the Democratic party.
Remember, “Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.”
23 Comments for “She Who Must Never Be Criticized”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Rosen’s and Griffin’s reaction sounds like just another flap over nothing much in a hyper-partisan election fight. I’ve participated in (at all sorts of levels) and run (at State Assembly and State Senate level) too many campaigns not to see this for what it is — overblown nonsense, ego protection and campaign counterpunching. It hardly merits hysteria and Harry Potter allusions, and that, in turn, shows the hyper-partisan content of IGF in recent years.
posted by TJ on
Hillary did actually talk about gay rights as human rights, in a pretty historic speech. She gave a similar speech on women’s rights in the 1990s.
Hillary gets plenty of criticism from the far right and the left.
Her record on LGBT rights has historically been within the political center.
If you want to honestly argue that the history could have been better, you have to honestly look at the Congress, the case law, and Joe Six pack voter.
posted by Kosh III on
Oops!
Once again this vital bit was left out because it didn’t fit the hate Hillary doctrine: ” Donald Trump is no friend to the LGBTQ community and people need to know that. He opposes marriage equality, has said he will appoint Supreme Court justices that will overturn the Obergefell marriage ruling,”
posted by Kosh III on
And the notion that HRC is not being criticized is such a blatant lie: she gets slandered daily and has been since 92. Just listen to Faux News, CNN, NYT and so many more rightist propaganda organs. Not to mention the criticism from the left.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Not to mention the criticism from the left.
Exactly. Secretary Clinton has been treated to a steady diet of criticism by LGBT activists, going back to at least 2008. Deservedly, because like most Democratic politicians, she had to be dragged along toward “equal means equal”. But she made it, and that counts. Homocons chose to ignore both the criticism and the evolution.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have been highly critical of her myself on a number of issues, but especially gay rights and her vote on the Iraq War. But given the alternatives, she was the best choice. If people don’t like my support for HRC then they need to find me someone more appealing to vote for. This year, they most certainly did not. In any party.
posted by Harvey "TJ" Milk on
Houndentenor;
Don’t you realize that homocons don’t actually have to make their case with logic, reason, humility, compassion or tact? All they have to do is argue that its progressive people’s fault that the GOP is anti-gay.
;0)
posted by Kosh III on
and/or that it’s the Clintons’ fault and/or the fault of the uppity colored muslim illegal alien kenyan.
posted by Doug on
Democrats have inched forward through criticism, cajoling, pressure and grass roots efforts. Republicans on the other hand have retrenched and doubled down on their intransigence. Democrats have evolved while Republicans have devolved.
I think you should get out of your Faux News bubble, Stephen, and take a good hard look at reality.
posted by TJ on
In the 1990s their were basically two options for gay rights at the Federal level.
Option 1. President Clinton was moderately supportive, but even his modest proposals got opposed by Congress (mostly, but not all thanks to the GOP)
Option 2. The Federal government gets even more hostile to gay rights.
Full equality wasn’t really on the table because of where the voters were and where the courts were.
Gay rights was something that the centrist wing of the Democratic party was warming up to, but only in baby steps.
The progressive wing of the Democrats had expressed some support earlier for gay rights, but they had limited influence (at the federal level) when being liberal became a dirty word, much like Republican cracks about San Francisco Democrats.
What is especially sleazy is the idea that President Clinton or Hillary Clinton could have advanced equal rights beyond the gradual and imperfect realities of the Congress, the Case law and the public opinion of Joe Six pack.
Partisan jabs and bumper sticker slogans may be unavoidable. However, don’t pee on my leg and call it lemonade.
posted by Houndentenor on
If Republicans are mad that 3/4 or more gay people vote for Democrats then they should do something about their policies and their party platform. The Clintons were not as good on gay issues as they could have been, although frankly he was better than any previous president had been which shows just how bad things had been. We had to drag them kicking and screaming on marriage in particular. But we did drag them. Where are the Republicans again? Yes, the Democrats are not as good as they could be but then where’s their motivation to be better when the Republicans are vowing to undo Obergefell?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, the Democrats are not as good as they could be but then where’s their motivation to be better when the Republicans are vowing to undo Obergefell?
The motivation is twofold: (1) staying in alignment with the fast-changing views of the American people (read down the poll for a reasonably extensive discussion of marriage equality and other LGBT issues), changing views brought about by the long, hard work of gays and lesbians; and (2) reflecting the views of Democrats and Independents, who strongly support “equal means equal” at this point.
The Republican Party is, at this point, is an irrelevancy on LGBT issues.
posted by Kosh III on
” But given the alternatives, she was the best choice. If people don’t like my support for HRC then they need to find me someone more appealing to vote for. This year, they most certainly did not. In any party.”
That’s how I feel too. However, I am voting for Jill Stein.
It won’t affect the outcome; HRC will be lucky to get 40% of the vote in my state, I’m sure Texas is about the same.
The GP wants to cut corporate welfare, cut the Empire, establish single-payer(the most cost effective and efficient option) and of course take long-overdue and drastic steps on climate issues although it may already be too late.
And the GP has been gay-supportive all along.
posted by TJ on
On paper, the Green Party has support LGBT rights since American Greens started running for office (mid-1980s). Although the party has traditionally been very unorganized (no formal national party created until 2001) and (IMHO) most Greens or Libertarians running for office do not strike me as being ready to hold Federal office in America.
In practice, its been a bit more complicated.
Ralph Nader initially spoke of gay rights issues as “gonad politics” (preferably avoided). Some locally elected Greens were clearly uncomfortable with granting equality to gay couples; i.e. an elected Green on the Minneapolis City Council vote against the proposed domestic partnership bill.
Also, the Greens do not always help their cause when they suggest that their is no difference between the two major parties.
posted by Kosh III on
The GP in Tennessee is poorly organized, they talk more and act less and a few seem to have some screws loose. But I like their principles and it won’t affect the outcome one whit.
posted by Harvey "TJ" Milk on
A good reason why we need more Electoral Fusion in our elections.
posted by Kosh III on
Unintended consequences of so-called religious freedom laws. Will you support her Miller?
and..
I’m sorry, sorry I can’t help myself: “no wire hangers! no wire hangers.” 🙂
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Will you support her Miller?
The facts don’t fit well into the “Christian martyrs denied Jesus by jackbooted progressive LGBT thugs” meme, so I doubt it.
posted by Kosh III on
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/indiana-religious-freedom-child-abuse_us_57c724e7e4b0a22de093b67c
well frak, I forgot the story link. No wire hangers!
posted by Jorge on
Ah, this headline.
I would say a religious freedom law is a good defense so long as she inflicted no injuries.
“arguing that her religious beliefs allow her to discipline her child as she sees fit, free from government interference.”
I would agree with this statement but for one thing. A child is not an object. A child has rights. The government may choose to overrule how those rights are protected even against religion when its actions are intended to prevent permanent damage. Not merely whether the child grows up with a certain belief or morality (I’m talking to you, ex-gay exterminators) for which s/he would still have education and free will enough to accept or renounce upon reaching adulthood.
I could go still farther by arguing that even if she didn’t inflict any injuries, the government can intervene against her religion if she’s dangerous enough to maybe possibly inflict injuries in the future, but let’s deep six this case for now, okay?
“Doctors found 36 bruises on the boy’s back, thigh and left arm, and a bruise on his cheek in the shape of a hanger hook.”
Yeah, no, you’re not winning, lady. Maybe if you hit him a little too hard or something, but not if you beat the **** out of him. You could have lacerated his liver, kidneys, skull, windpipe, stomach, and brain with that kind of abuse, the fact that you missed is academic. I’ve heard this saying “If you have the law on the side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, if you have nothing, just argue.” She doesn’t have the facts on her side, so she’s trying to argue the law. It won’t work.
posted by TJ on
This is one of the problems with defending a bill, without looking at nitty, gritty details. The fact that a bill has a great sounding name — i.e. protecting religious freedom — does not mean that it is actually a good bill.
posted by Jorge on
““You could see the powerful way she has leveraged her influence on behalf of women and children or other issues,” said Alan van Capelle, a former director of the now-disbanded Empire State Pride Agenda. “In terms of LGBT rights and marriage, there were people who led and people who followed. And on that issue, she followed.””
I would frame it this way: In terms of progressive issues in general, there were issues on which she lead and issues on which she followed, and on this issue, she followed. No?
Of course that was a one-sided story. There’s very little that’s negative to say about Clinton in this area. But it does appear the piece was edited after publication.
“The Samuels piece fails to show that Clinton, while her evolution did take time and she certainly was not a “leader” on any of the issues, is leaps and bounds ahead of her opponent when it comes to LGBTQ rights.”
No it doesn’t. A columnist or journalist is under no obligation to compare Hillary Clinton’s email scandal to Donald Trump’s bankruptcies; he can choose to do so or not. It is the same here.
I would follow Hillary Clinton to the ends of… my sidewalk. If only she were not in a losing struggle with the rest of the Democratic party.
posted by TJ on
I’m not sure that quoting George Orwell is especially useful.
For starters Orwell Was generally a democratic socialist, not a political conservative.
Second, did George Orwell comment on gay rights?
Lastly, 1984 -as a novel – views advances in technology as helping to create a dictator. The reality is a bit more complex….as should be known by someone who blogs.