Hillary: "I disagree with what [Pace] said, and do not share his view, plain and simple"

New statement released by campaign:



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/clinton.gays/index.html

and should never have been asked in the first place.

Slap these interviewers down and around!

It's going to be a tough road to the Whitehouse for any one of them.

They need their rest for the same go round tomorrow..

I call them:

:rofl:

oops, might wake em! shhhhhhh.

now whetheryou like it or not doesn't matter one whit. but i'll betcha dollars to donuts it's gonna keep being asked. and if any of the Dem candidates really wanna be taken seriously then they better quit this equivocating and mealy mouthing act of dodging direct questions and start giving a direct reply.

Is start attacking the questioners, and savagely.

Ask them if they think the American people give the north end of a south-bound rat about that, with the country locked in a disasterous war, and ruled by a regime of unparalleled corruption and fiscal mis-management. Ask them why they are wasting their own, and everyone else's, time, with such distractions and fripperies. Commence lecturing them on the responsibilities of the press, and how they have shirked them for the past six years, and by doing so done a great deal to land the country and its people in this mess we face today.

Boy, that'll surely get you votes.

They enjoy seeing them attacked, and applaud people who do it.

People are also tired of distraction by 'moral' questions, which most everyone understands are meaningless, and do not affect the real difficulties faced by the country, which they want our political leadership to fix.

That's what it sounds like to me.

Show up on opinion surveys asking what professions people respect down near the used car salesmen....

But one we're not likely to see in our lifetimes.I don't think any of the candidates has that kind of courage,I really don't.And even if they did it would be spun as a calculated move to rouse the base (a la Big Dog's run in with Wallace a few months back).

Until I'm proven wrong (which usually doesn't take long) I believe the previous poster's assesment is correct.These non-answer answers are not going to cut it with a lot of voters,and certainly wont change any minds in their favor.Lecturing the press on their responsibilities,while correct,ensures a fast track to the back page.

We don't decide what the issues are,the media does.And whether any of us think this is valid or not really doesn't matter.This nonsense will persist,whether we like it or not,and all of the candidates would be wise to have a firmer answer at hand,one that doesn't need to be appended later that night.

All moves should be calculated, when something of importance is being done. President Clinton's attack on Wallace doubtless was calculated, and calculated very well, as it had a very beneficial effect. The idea that what political figures say should be spontaneous and un-rehearsed and without thought to both future and past is a bit off the mark: what politicians say certainly should sound as if it is these things, but those sounds, like a jazz musician's improvisations, must always be the product of long practice and deep calculation so they have exactly the needed sound.

It seems to me an attack on the press would be guaranteed a good deal of coverage: the press likes to talk about itself above all other things, and would be unable collectively to resist. It would be like 'shave and a hair-cut' in earshot of a toon. Certyainly past attacks on the press have become major stories, and have generally resounded to the benefit of the attacker. Clips of the attack would be replayed endlessly, and even if the pontificators were speaking words of condemnation, the message people would take away would be "Here's someone doing just what I'd do...."

"Sincerity is the most important thing: if you can fake that, you've got it made."

nt

...what you just said is WORSE than anyone has said Hillary said or did not say.

So the question is whether Hillary thinks homosexuality is immoral. And the answer..."Ask them if they think the American people give the north end of a south-bound rat about that". Well, that might be cute...but I am sure that anyone who is gay or has friends or family who are gay would take offense at someone comparing the issue of the morality of gays to such a low down insulting comparison.

Hillary copped out by leaving it to others, something she does out of habit. At least she did not have the malignant and down right mean-spirited gaul to say the entire issue is so unimportant as the north end of a south-bound rat.

I thought Democrats were different. I thought they were more sympathetic to gay rights. I guess not all Democrats give a rat's ass about gay rights.

That very few people think that whether homosexual acts are immoral or not is a pressing concern of our national life, and has nothing at all to do with the questions of war and peace, corruption, and financial mis-management our country faces. Further, the more general this unconcern with the question is, the better the chances of the great majority of voters coming to view the matter as it ought to be viewed, as a question of all persons having equal rights under the law in society, without exception save penalty for criminal conduct. This style of answer would appeal to a great many people who are concerned with the pressing problems our nation faces, and want dealt with by their political leaders, and also greatly advance the view that the question of morality in this is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether we all have the same set of rights and liberties or not.

"The shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line."

They say, "I do not believe homosexuals are immoral people."

It takes but 5 seconds or less, then they can go on to what you say (which is all good).

Edit: if they equivocate, as Senator Clinton did yesterday, I will not vote for them in the General election.

The attempt to get her to say her husband was wrong?

The attempt to get her to define morality?

She answered the first pretty well -- without coming right out and saying Bill blew it. She's married to him; that's the best you're going to get.

And the second? Doesn't matter. Her personal opinion is of no concern. Her position about where the government should stand is very important.

The issues of gay rights have been framed by the religious right as about morality. It's not about the morality or immorality of homosexuality. It's about civil rights for all citizens, period. Once you allow the religious aspect of this into the conversation, it gets all muddied and goes nowhere -- which of course, is exactly what the right wants.

And decided to join John Warner in his view.

I agree with them, but Senator Clinton has a habit of parroting others--constantly.

I'd like to see an original idea from her.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just wondering, can't figure out your tone...thanks.

What???

Is this how you say welcome to the big tent???

Encouraging us all,one DUer at a time.

so it's not like her position has changed during the day. I think her campaign just realized that the problem wasn't going to go away unless it was addressed by Hillary herself.

It doesn't work for anyone. There are few and far between original ideas among Democrats, since they agree on the basics, and any idea's genesis can almost always be traced from one candidate to somebody else. Ya know?

But you promised a moratorium on all candidates until August.

original campaign ideas ;)

Having an aide reassure your allies is not the same as Hillary saying it herself.

Going softly onto the "gay" issue, which will be brought up again and again, is not going to retain the base while you stretch over for center votes.

When asked if she thinks homosexuality is immoral, she should have been direct.

Here's a suggestion: The General's comments were inappropriate because dictating morals is neither his job nor his expertise. I'm not going to use this podium to tell our fellow Americans that they are immoral for their beliefs or practices. Out enemy is al-Quaida and I suggest the General return his focus to the reality of today.

Granted, it would take foresight and political talent to be this quick on your feet, but that is what we're looking for in a President, isn't it?

Peace.

Peace

Hillary needs to consult her campaign to put out a statement on whether or not being gay is immoral?

And what the hell does Iraq have to do with Pace's comments on LGBTs?

It took the Hillary campaign hours to put out a response that it took John Edwards a fraction of a second to say to CNNs' Wolf Blitzer.

Better sooner than later.

Which she calls "tactical" and not a question civil rights.

They had children there , old men, and used woman to degrade men.


This is the real story folks.

Not just gay rights

HUMAN RIGHTS
she call that tactical.............

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3161744

An example of core values was the recent statement issued by an Evangelical organization that condemned human rights abuses committed by the US government under the pretext of fighting the War on Terror. This group of evangelicals took a strong position against torture, rendition, physical deprivation, and other human rights abuses committed in CIA secret prisons, Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Another example of core values was the late Pope John Paul II's warning to Bush and Blair that if they went into Iraq, they would do so without G_d. The Pope's warning was prompted by his resolute belief in the sanctity of life. The Pope's consistent opposition to the taking of human life, at any stage of life, is illustrative of a moral core. Those that disagreed with him on principle, also had a moral core.

Pax Christi, a Catholic group that organized an anti-Bush demonstration when he came to Notre Dame campus shortly after the war began, also has a moral core, as does Code Pink.

Some issues are clear cut, requiring a strong stance, and are not subjected to "tactical" or "strategic" or "triangulation." An example of "tactical" or "strategic" was the US support of South Africa's apartheid government on the basis that South Africa provided the West with strategic metals, such as chrome for the bumpers of our cars.

For progressives, wars of aggression are always wrong, as is torture, denial of habeas corpus, infringement of women and LGBT rights. The question as to General Pace's remarks that gays were immoral for just being gay, should have been met with a strong and immediate response in opposition. A person whose core belief is that LGBTs are entitled to the same rights and privileges enjoyed by straight citizens, would have answer immediately and without hesitation. A person that lacks such core belief would have responded as Hillary did.

I knew full well she didn't agree with Pace...she needs to get better at realizing when she is being asked a question that requires a more passionate answer. When she is being interviewed she isn't in the Senate...so needs to get out of wonk mode in those situations...

She can do it, her comments on Gonzales were perfect...

Seems like Obama has fallen into that pattern at times as well...

than to play politics. They can do that with everything else but why not answer like this, "how can who a person loves be immoral".

The fact is that when she had no time to assess the politics of it she did not say that she did not agree with that view. She refused to state her view that she disagreed with it, unlike John Edwards and even a Republican senator from Virginia.

That's pretty damn clear to me.

Good for you, Senator Clinton.