2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumVox: Bill and Hillary Clinton are lying about DOMA, engaging in historical revisionism
Last edited Sat Oct 31, 2015, 09:23 AM - Edit history (2)
It's a politically convenient story, and it has the virtue of fitting the broad macro facts about how American law and politics developed in the 20-year time span between 1995 and 2015. Unfortunately for the Clintons, a detailed examination of the documentary evidence from the Clinton White House by BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner makes it pretty clear that it's not true. If DOMA ultimately served the role that the Clintons are now attributing to it, it did so largely by coincidence, not as a result of strategy...
Yet faced with the popularity of DOMA and its overwhelming support in Congress, Clinton signed the law and ran radio ads touting his support of it in Southern states. He signed it in the middle of the night, with no cameras present and without a signing ceremony, as if he knew at the time that he would not want it to be part of his legacy, though he did want it to be part of his reelection campaign...
"There is no contemporaneous evidence, however, to support the claim that the Clinton White House considered a possible federal constitutional amendment to be a concern, based on a BuzzFeed News review of the thousands of documents released earlier this year by the Clinton Presidential Library about same-sex couples marriage rights and the Defense of Marriage Act. In the documents, which include correspondence from a wide array of White House and Justice Department officials, no one even hints that Bill Clintons thinking or actions regarding DOMA were animated by the threat of a federal constitutional amendment..."
But on a bigger level, DOMA is a reminder of the politics of "triangulation" that characterized much of the Clinton years. While Hillary Clinton has heavily invested in an image of herself as a gritty "fighter" for progressive causes, the realities of the mid-1990s were rather different. While Obama-era Republicans have generally pursued a politics of hostage taking and high-stakes confrontation, Clinton-era congressional Republicans were often much more willing to cut deals. The Clinton administration was also very willing to cut deals, signing things like DOMA, the 1996 welfare reform bill, and a 1997 budget agreement that cut capital gains taxes. This spirit of dealmaking largely evaporated when Republicans decided to impeach Clinton. For example, it's widely believed that the impeachment crisis scuttled a nascent Clinton-Gingrich agreement to partially privatize Social Security.
The DOMA episode is a reminder of many liberal leaders' secret fears about the prospect of a new Clinton administration. Namely that far from being fighters, the Clintons are actually inveterate compromisers who might be excessively willing to go along with GOP legislative initiatives if Republicans could bother to set aside their Benghazi inquiries for a few months and come up with some initiatives. The new Clinton line on DOMA casts them as savvy strategists who helped outwit the right, but the historical record seems to show transactional politicians who made a cynical calculus that they had a lot to lose and nothing to gain from opposing DOMA.
Full article: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/10/30/9642602/clinton-doma-constitutional-amendment
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)No more Clinton. No more Bush.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)sarge43
(28,942 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)called out for that. It might interest you to know that in the 10 years prior to DOMA several hundred thousand people in the LGBT community died of a virus the right wing laughed about. So your snark toward this subject is like a fart at a funeral.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But if I'm right it doesn't seem to match up with what they are saying about DOMA does it?
Or should we say she was for it before she was against it before she was for it? Do you really want to support a candidate that requires a scorecard to keep up with? Instead of as in baseball saying what inning is it, with Hillary do you say what year is it?
Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)This corresponds with my memory of what occurred. My partner and I discussed this a lot when it was going on. We were both GLBT activists.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Before I'd believe somebody trying to discredit them.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)Because the analysis of documents the article **claims** was performed provides no evidence to suggest that Clinton's support of DOMA was motivated by concerns regarding a constitutional amendment. And I have to believe that if that consideration were a driving factor, there would be some evidence to that effect.
I'm not a big fan of historical revisionism ... though it is Standard Operating Procedure in the Republican Party. I would really hate to see the Democratic Party or any of its leaders resort to the same method. Clinton support of DOMA remains disturbing to many. If the rationale really was driven by concerns regarding a possible constitutional amendment, then it is incumbent on the Clintons to document this new historical information.
Trav
Gman
(24,780 posts)Even though someone who had those discussions says it's not. I would think that if someone in the Clinton WH and even Congress who would have been part of those discussions came out and said they never had discussions about the threat of an amendment would be much stronger evidence than lack of documentation. Why would you document those discussions? The article is just an exercise in ASSUME.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)JackHughes
(166 posts)The essay is incorrect, Hillary Clinton is right. DOMA was indeed a strategy to prevent the passage of a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage which was gaining steam at the time, and it worked. Imagine how difficult -- if not impossible -- the recent advances would have been if roadblocked by a constitutional amendment.
Remember that Bill Clinton campaigned on the right for gays to serve in the military, and was hammered even for the tentative achievement of "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)JackHughes
(166 posts)What you describe as "insulting revisionist history" was my memory of the actual events as they were happening back in the 1990s.
If you were "insulted" by that, too bad. Politics can be complicated. But as all will agree, DOMA ended the push for a Federal Marriage Amendment and things worked out for the best.