Clinton advised Kerry to endorse state bans on gay marriage

At least that's what Newsweek is claiming.

Kerry refused to go along with this advice.

Although I have no problems whatsoever with gay marriage, I think Clinton was (yet again) right on the politics. And frankly, I don't think it would have taken much of a stretch for Kerry to do this.

He could have said something like this: "I oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Marriage has always been a matter left to the states, and I believe it should remain that way. If a state wants to recognize gay marriage, it should have the right to do so. And if a state does not want want to recognize gay marriage, it should not be required to do so. The president claims that activist state court judges are taking this decision away from the people. But as we've seen, not only in my own state, but around the country, the president couldn't be more wrong. The people are being given the opportunity to decide this matter on a state by state basis. And that is as it should be."

the religious freaks that were behind this would not have voted for Kerry anyway.

That statement would have been calling for leaving it up to the states. But when Cheney advocated that about a year ago, the fundies were calling for his head because of his "anti-Christian, liberal" position. :eyes:

The fact is that "making it a state-by-state issue" is unacceptable to the "moral values" crowd, just as much as proposing civil unions instead of "gay marriage." What the fundies demand is, pure and simple, a Constitutional amendment that applies to everyone (San Francisco as well as their own home town), and that bans any civil union arrangement as well. They'll do the state-by-state route, but only when the solution they really want is not yet available.

The only way Kerry could have appealed to them is if he proposed a federal Constitutional amendment forbidding both gay marriage and civil unions. He probably would have had to propose similar amendments declaring human life to begin at conception and mandating school prayer, too. Even so, had Bush taken the same positions, he would have won among them, anyway, since he, unlike Kerry, is so clearly "deeply religious." :puke:

who voted against the Defensive marriage Act.

You mean the Defense of Marriage act don't you?

But in his case, I guess your original wording might be appropriate ;-)

His record suggests he's a repuke enabler, if not a total RINO. He worked in a far more true spirit of bipartisanship than * ever will, and look how they treated him. No good deed goes unpunished.

I've been very leery about this "he's the best friend of the gay community" horseshit. Yes, he DID sign DOMA, he didn't lift a goddamned finger to repeal the sodomy law in Arkansas when he was governor and he caved like a stack of cards on lifting the ban on gay people in the military. He was the fucking COMMANDER in CHIEF, goddammit. No excuses. None.

I like the big dog, but sometimes he stinks.

Clinton was his own worst enemy.

And for someone who was so casual about his OWN marriage vows to say they're too sacred for two men is sickening.

He went to Missouri the day they passed an amendment banning same sex marriage and Kerry endorsed the amendment. It clearly did him no good at all.

Kerry is a good man. He would have made an amazing president for all of us. His position on civil unions was radical for the red states. He was brave to back it.

Clinton sold gays out on DOMA and Gays in the Military. His record isn't exactly spotless.

Read more about the Newsweek stuff here on Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html

"Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that.'" Being more Clintonesque on gay marriage may have won Kerry some swing votes, but that comes with a price, and one Kerry wasn't willing to pay.

On edit: Added link and excerpt

Clinton to a huge hit & DADT was the beginning of the end for Demo. control of the House in '96.

Clinton to a huge hit & DADT was the beginning of the end for Demo. control of the House in '96.

-- "Clinton to a huge hit"...did you mean "took" instead?

-- DADT? What's that?

-- "the beginning of the end for Demo. control of the House in '96." Actually, the Democrats lost control of the House in '94.

Thank for the comments- Looking at my post, wow, I must have been tired.


DADT- Dont't ask, don't tell

Yes, took

Yeah, Clinton elected '92, loss of House 2 years later '94

I admire Clinton and how he ran the country in the 90's. It was a much better time back then for everyone. He was far better on gay rights than than anyone in power now. That's for sure!

I guess when I hear people moaning about how gays are bringing down the country and democratic party, it freaks me out. It's like saying we would be better if the country were aryan. That's not reality, either.

doesn't support any laws against it, never made much sense.

Maybe too fine. I dunno. I accepted his position. He had to address the issues at hand, without completely alienating his democratic base.

I wish sometimes that he would have gone full bore with supporting gay marriage, but our time will come eventually. I'm very grateful that he didn't sell us out as Clinton recommended.

but not support laws to ban it.

Not everything has to be addressed by policy proposals. And he did offer a policy proposal for federal benefits for civil unions.

I was disappointed that he didn't go all out and embrace gay marriage, but I appreciated and would have welcomed civil union recognition on a federal level.

Two or three?

That's all. Besides, voting is a zero sum game. If 50,000 Ohioans switched their vote, that would have made Kerry the winner.

...had Kerry suddenly endorsed state bans on gay marriage, it would have quickly been labelled yet another example of...something that rhymes with "clip-clop."

:eyes:

My, oh my. Dolstein blaming Clinton. What a surprise.

say that in one of the debates!

Clinton knows his politics. I don't know what he stands for sometimes, but his instincts are insanely accurate.

Clinton was more politically astute than JFK and understood how the cultural issues play in the red states. Other big difference -- Clinton was elected president twice and Kerry lost.

I do not agree with a constitutional federal ban, but I believe each and every state has the right to deny marriage to gays.

I'm sure you just forgot to add that, right?

But just because Newsweek said it, doesn't make it true. I gave up on Newsweek a long, long, time ago. Remember how much energy they spent on Monica -- remember Michael Isokoff? Now, how much energy have they put into looking into all the issues surround *? Hardly any.

Read Dean's book or find a review of it at WP magazine by Kevin Phillips. Or a review at MSNBC.

Got a little confused on your post.

:hi:

jesus christ, ammending a constitution to basically discriminate against people, and Clinton approves, he's now on my list.

Not only did Kerry's decision fail to prevent a single anti-gay marriage initiative from passing, but it pretty much guaranteed that the judiciary will be filled with Bush appointees hostile to gay rights.

"when you trade your values for the hope of winning, you
end up losing and having no values....so you keep losing." Howard Dean
2004

The Republicans used to be the party of Lincoln. Now they're the party of Strom Thurmond. And they control the House, the Senate, and have won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections. What a losing streak.

He lost, and partly because he was brought down by the party because of the civil unions bill. He stood up for what he thought was right. He continues to do so, and he is stubborn about it.

Others could learn a lesson from him.

You guys are insane. WHy would they bring Dean down becasue of civil unions and then nominate a pro-civil union candidate? Stop looking for excuses.

badly.

they would have probably added Mich, Wisconsin and Penn to thier tally if we nominated Dean.

I gather.

I am not going to post it here. Trust me, it was a deciding factor in the party's decision that Dean could not be the candidate.

I think the day is past for you to call Deaniacs insane....we are the ones sticking together, you know.

Are you saying Kerry could have prevented any of the gay marriage bans from passing? I don't think so.

Pardon me if I missed sarcasm in your post.

The Supreme Court could strike down all of the state gay marriage bans by interpreting the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution to require that states provide gay couples with the same opportunity to marry that straight couples have.

In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court could accomplish nationwide what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did statewide.

That will not happen now. Bush will pack the Supreme Court with justices who are hostile to gay rights.

"In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court could accomplish nationwide what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did statewide."

And the fear of this is what the GOP exploited to pass the marriage bans. Fear that Kerry would appoint SC justices to impose gay marriage just like Roe was imposed was a strong argument for them.

I don't think the GOP is interested in trying for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage/unions. They still don't have the votes even with 55 senators. And by the time it got to the states, you'd see some of the defect anyway.

It ain't over yet. But it certainly didn't help Democrats in this cycle.

According to Greg Palast, Kerry won.

It would have been too little, too late for the fundies. I see no reason to believe Kerry doing what Clinton asked would have changed enough votes to have made a difference.



--Peter

Pulled by me

I won't post the quote here, but read the book. It is short and sweet, like a handbook for standing up for people.

Leave it to the religions. If you start legislating the doctrine of a religion, what doctrine will you legislate next? Communion?

No one cares what you do in church.

The issue is about civil, legal rights and benefits.

Get it straight. OK?

I guess, according to your rules, my husband and I aren't really "MARRIED", considering he is an athiest and we were married not in a church, but in a courthouse, by a judge. Yeah, I guess he and I and the millions of other heterosexual couples who've gotten hitched at the courthouse are just not legitimately MARRIED, given that, according to you, marriage is all about "bonding with God." Wonder how come we get the same exact tax breaks, spousal rights and other benefits that couples married in a church do? The government seems to recognize our unholy little courthouse union as legit, but I guess they just must have missed memo that marriage is a SACRAMENT.

I tell ya, my husband is not going to be happy when I break the news to him that we really have been livin' in sin all this time...god, what will my mother-in-law think???

:eyes:

Well?

contract of a binding couple is regulated. It is secular and civil. (Kerry touched on this, I wished he'd have followed through.)

Marriage is defined by religious doctrine. In the US, marriages take place every day without benefit of secular licensing.

The two are being blurred and I don't think that it is in a religion's best interest.

If, for instance, the Church of the Openly Gay organized (and I'm not talking about Mary C.) and started bestowing the sacrament of marriage on their couples, how would it effect their tax status? Would their clergy be subject to jail time? Would it be a felony? Can the state define its doctrine? Its covenant with the God it worships?

I know we have done this before with the bigamy issue. It just makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to move toward a state religion.

If your church doctrine does not comply with federal law does that mean you lose your tax exempt status?

and the turnout was concentrated mostly on this one social issue,the seond being abortion, it would not have mattered at all. I think that people were hell bent on righteous indignation because of religious beliefs.

Totally ridiculous.

It would be percieved as an inconsistant opinion, and they would have exploited that and it might have been even worse for him.

That is my point....we always do things according to how THEY will react. We must stop it right now.

Bottom line: he won by 5.5 and 8.5 points in an era none of our other nominees can break even. Yeah, Gore by .5% when it should have been 3. We haven't broken 50% nationally since '64 yet Clinton would have done it twice, undeniably in '96, minus Perot. He got 52% in Louisiana, for God's sake, winning by 13%.

Our party needs someone who understands politics and isolates the best candidates, and issues for the candidate to emphasize. Primaries should be eliminated. What the fuck did Kerry think he was going to accomplish by bashing Bush every day, when Bush was landlocked in support and Kerry was hovering at below 50/50 approval rating as a challenger? That's damn hard to accomplish. I wanted a positive push and it never happened. The exit polls all say Kerry was considered to have attacked unfairly, much more than Bush. Perception is always key, not reality.

Clinton listened to Dick Morris and now Democrats should listen to Clinton. Like dolstein says, newsflash we're losing. Try something different, something bold. I damn sure don't rely on the same sports betting system if it fails year after year. Sometimes I even reverse it and bet the other way. Whatever wins. This goddamn emerging Democratic majority is taking its sweet fucking time and nobody in my family is getting any younger. I haven't even turned on the TV since Tuesday night when everything started to crumble.

Syphoning away conservative votes. Gore had Nader and Kerry had... well, Nader, but to a much smaller degree. Still, without Perot running in '92, I have many doubts about who would have won that race in a head-to-head matchup. It wasn't just pure Clinton campaign genius.

Perot got what, 19%? Clinton won by 5.5%. So that would have required a 12.5% to 7% edge to Bush among Perot voters. Were Perot voters the type who would embrace an incumbent and not a different challenger, especially by a 65/35 margin? An incumbent with a 41% approval rating an a deficit Perot himself was critizing in every speech and debate, charts aplenty? We'll never know, but I would love to wager otherwise.

I used to check the emerging democratic majority blog and even I knew many times that I was kidding myself hearing what Texiera had to say. I knew it was positive spin, but I ate it up anyways.

Looking back, Mason Dixon polls were very accurate. It's what I thought to myself soon after the results started coming in. I always knew they were relatively accurate, but looking over the results, the only state they had wrong was MN, where they had Bush winning.

I could tell right when I heard NJ's margin that this would be a rough night. Right when I knew that Kerry had won by 7 in a state Gore won by 16, I knew it wasn't looking good.

It still stuns me that Bush did better in almost every state, including those Kerry won (CT, NJ, NY, all had smaller margins). The margins in Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and several others also blew me away. I think they were all in double digits.

If we are to gauge the next election based on this one, there will be very few swing states because we lost in them by huge margins.

...are mostly attributable to Clinton's personal popularity.

And the fact that both were Southerners. They were able to present themselves as Southerners and they understood those regional sensibilities.

Clinton was stronger than Gore though. Clinton was a Teflon president in much the same way Reagan was. People just liked them and didn't care all that much about some of their fibbing and other shortcomings.

Personality and voter perception of the candidate means a lot. You have to work very hard to overcome lack of personal appeal by substituting public policy.

Nationally, our problem is the party ID switch post 9/11. We lost our small edge and now it's even and drifting away from us, other than the northeast. Unless it's reclaimed that changes the dynamics of almost every race in the foreseaable future. If an equal number of Dems/GOP show up and we're guaranteed to lose a net 2-5% more crossover than they do, how are we supposed to win?

Presidentially, our losses can easily overcome with a superior, charismatic candidate with the proper doasge index. Nothing complicated at all. I just wish we had someone atop the party who would mandate that selection, and not a garbage free for all with hundreds of thousands of idiots handicapping our best interests. I thought 2004 should be Edwards, not ideal dosage index but likeable and Teflon. ABB plus some charisma might have been enough. We got buried among white women 44-55 while Gore basically broke even 48-49. Edwards might have held just enough of them to make a difference.

I can't BELIEVE people here are actually saying Kerry should have gone along with this. I thought we were all in agreement that we need to be a TRUE OPPOSITION PARTY. Part of being an opposition party is not going along with your opponents' bigoted legislation. UGH!

Clinton triangulated using gays before, so this is no surprise to me really. But it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

What's the point of being an opposition party when you are completely impotent? In case you hadn't noticed, the Democrats are in the minority in the House and the Senate, and don't have the White House. Not only can't the Democrats push their own legislative agenda, they are powerless to stop the Republican agenda.

Personally, I'm tired of being the beleaguered opposition party. I preferred it when the Republicans were the opposition party.

It was when they decided to very clearly distinguish themselves from US. And now that they've got a very clear message and agenda (war, "family values", religious bigotry, and intolerance), people are flocking to them! Do you REALLY think that people would have switched their votes from Bush to Kerry because Kerry makes some willy-nilly pseudo-endorsement of gay marriange bans? Hell no! They've already got a candidate who is WHOLELY AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. Hell, they've got a whole PARTY that is! All it would have done is alienate actual loyalists, like myself. It would have been a stupid, and in my opinion immoral political, maneuver. THAT'S one of the reasons so many people feel that politics is bullshit and therefore don't vote: they think politicians are just saying whatever to win votes. If Kerry had gone bolder and presented a true opposition to Bush from the beginning, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation. Maybe we would, I really don't know. But moving further to the right, when there is already a party about a RIGHT AS YOU CAN GET is just political suicide!

Not pacify. It will take a long long time to fix the harm that has been done.

those up that Kerry was almost the same as Bush. Kerry may have sacrificed his fuckin campaign over this issue.

Thanks for picking up on that.

I didn't mean to not mention Dean. I always admired Dean's stance on this issue. I felt that both Dean and Kerry had taken courageous moves on gay rights in their own respective ways (Kerry by voting against DOMA and Dean's signing of VT's civil unions bill).

I'm still having a tough time believing what happened.

Didn't take it the wrong way. I think both tried to do the right thing, and I think Clinton was really off on this issue.

He needed to keep the base solid, and I think this was one of the things he did in order to achieve that. Whether it was the right decision, who can say. Morally, it was the right thing to do, so I suppose we have to live with that.

1) "I support the Constitution of the United States, and as President I will uphold it and the will of the people."

2) "I support states rights. If a state chooses to ban gay marriage, that is their right. I may not personally agree with it, but as President I will uphold the laws of this nation."

End of debate.

Nov 3rd you do what you will...after you're President.

:shrug:

Kerry would have alienated his base. And I don't really think he would have won even one more state by doing embracing the gay marriage bans.

Given the court decision from MA, perhaps there simply was no good strategy on this issue in this election cycle. I think Kerry played his hand as well as it could be played.

Clinton doesn't walk on water. Much of his success in the WH was due to his political staff and the appeal of his personalality, just like any other president. He's not a professional political strategist.

losing team and be just and right than on the winning team of bigotry.

but wrong on how to be a moral human being. And that is as close as I get to defending Senator Roll Over.

I really, really adore President Clinton but I knew he was a sociopath from day one. I also saw that he chose the path of light which is highly unusual for those unencumbered by their conscience and I knew that would make him formidable.

I supported him but I decline to support this aspect. My conscience would be too burdened if I allowed this one. I've learned in the last year to swallow an awful lot for expediency. I won't swallow this one.

I am TIRED of bigots who do not support FULL equality for gay people. It's bigotry, pure and simple. Bill Clinton didn't lift a goddamned finger to end the sodomy law in Arkansas when he was governor...and he goes again. Our "bestest friend of the gay community". Bullshit.

This only confirms my conviction when I wrote THIS.

Bill never was afraid to appeal to people's worse qualities in order to get elected. From Ronnie Lee Rector to Sister Souljah to this.

I'm glad Kerry didn't go along.