It Doesn’t Matter

I was actually in the middle of composing a post asking the same thing, but Doug Mataconis did a fine job explaining it doesn’t matter when or why Hillary Clinton changed her mind, but she did.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

214 replies
  1. 1
    Baud says:

    It might not be a popular opinion here, but I agree.

    The notion that any Democrat has to feel defensive about gay marriage in this day is ludicrous.

  2. 2
    PsiFighter37 says:

    Fuck, I don’t believe for a second that Obama was actually anti-gay marriage. It was just the convenient thing to say in 2008. Pretty sure it’s the same for Hillary too.

  3. 3
    seabe says:

    Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn’t. Her interview still sucked, and she still seems to expect a coronation. Everything about this episode exemplifies why I supported Obama over her early in the primary.

  4. 4
    feebog says:

    I’ll tell you what does matter; the next President will most likely choose at least three, and perhaps as many as five Supreme Court Justices. And I’d much rather that be President Clinton than President Cruz/Paul/Christie/Bush/Walker/Rubio.

  5. 5
    Hunter Gathers says:

    Reality doesn’t matter if a journalist gets to say ‘Gotcha! You flip-flopper.’

    In other news, Tim Russert is still dead.

  6. 6
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:


    President Cruz/Paul/Christie/Bush/Walker/Rubio.

    I am pretty sure W banned human/animal hybrids.

  7. 7
    chopper says:

    ultimately it doesn’t matter. if you’re for it you’re for it.

    But at this point I think democrats like backing someone who is not only all-in for gay marriage but also for straight-up moral reasons.

  8. 8
    dubo says:

    I’ve never considered the “civil unions but not marriage” crowd, the ones who for religious reasons wouldn’t vote for legalized gay marriage in those words but weren’t actively trying to work against LGBT rights, “bigots.” In the wrong, and socially ignorant, yes, but not bigoted. It’s a pretty slick bait-and-switch to compare Rick Santorum or Brendan Eich to pre-2012 Obama and call liberals “hypocrites” for recognizing the huge difference there

  9. 9
    Capt. Seaweed says:

    This was a terrible interview. It did nothing to change my mind about Mrs Clinton. I’ll vote for her only because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. She doesn’t inspire me at all. She fills me with dread….

  10. 10
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    In other news, Tim Russert is still dead.

    Praise be to FSM for that. Now if only we can get everyone who sang his praises six years ago to join him in the land of wind and ghosts….

  11. 11
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): OK, which one is the human?

  12. 12
    Baud says:


    wrong, and socially ignorant, yes,

    That was me a long time ago. Didn’t grok the big deal about civil unions.

  13. 13
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I figure one of the six must be. Probably Christie. But you may be right and I will turn to my second line of argument.

  14. 14
    Betty Cracker says:

    @PsiFighter37: This.

  15. 15
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    This thread calls for this:

    “It just doesn’t matter!”

  16. 16
    David Koch says:

    I’m not a fan of Hillary because of her votes for the war and Kyl-Lieberman, as well as her pushing for intervention in Syria. I mean, if you want to go to war so badly, everywhere, send your daughter and your Goldman Sachs son-in-law first.

    That said, I heard the interview with Terry Gross and she sounded fine.

    Gross was pushing the theory that Hillary personally supported gay marriage in the 90s but supported DOMA anyways. But there’s no evidence of that.

    The whole theory is based on a Sally Quinn smear. For years Quinn pushed the story around the media that Hillary was secretly gay. Terry Gross probably fell for that and thinks Hillary really supported gay marriage in the 90s because she was in reality gay. But there is absolutely no evidence to support that.

    Hillary should be opposed on policy, not on personality, and especially not on scurrilous rumors and innuendo manufactured by the likes of Sally Quinn.

  17. 17
    dmsilev says:

    Something like two or three percentage points of the population change their minds on gay marriage every year (the trend has been remarkably consistent for the last decade or so). Is it really so surprising that any given person is a member of that rather large group?

    Also, should be interesting to watch the GOP primaries in 2016. The GOP base makes up a large fraction of the “Don’t approve” segment, whereas the country as a whole is right now majority-approve. Should be fun watching the candidates try to thread that needle.

  18. 18
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    Yeah, I’m more concerned about her changing her mind on the warhawkery. I’ll vote for her if she’s our candidate, but not a fan of that part.

  19. 19
    Mnemosyne says:


    Eh, I used to be for civil unions back in the 90s. At the time, it seemed like we needed some kind of official intermediary step to marriage, and California already had domestic partnership registration, so it seemed like civil unions were the logical next step to ease people into the idea.

    So I was wrong, but not maliciously wrong.

  20. 20
    piratedan says:

    @David Koch: no argument, but the Beltway press would still promote those rumors even if she dropped to her knees and gave Bill a hummer in front of them. The Clintons were interlopers after all, hell, they were even registered Democrats…..

  21. 21
    aimai says:

    @PsiFighter37: Right. My assumption is that most Democratic politicians, especially from the North/northeast or from a moderate background were pro-gay rights and pro-gay marriage but didn’t find it easy to come out and say so until the winds changed. Far from Clinton ever being “personally against it” and changing her public stance because it was politically expedient I assume that she like other women her age was either indifferent to it or supportive of it personally but couldn’t find a way to say so publicly because of the political realities.

    I’d also like to add, though this could be wrong w/r/t Sullivan, that there was some dissension within the gay community over the proper way forward with respect to equal marriage, as opposed to equal rights or equal marriage law suits as opposed to legislative initiatives. Things changed very rapidly in terms of overall strategy and tactics. You can’t expect any politician to get out ahead of each and every different position a minority may be taking.

  22. 22
    Violet says:

    I didn’t hear the interview but just clicked through and read the transcript. Ugh. Seems like a dumb response on Hillary’s part. Doesn’t seem like the best response from Hillary considering it’s a Terry Gross interview. She’s a sharp interviewer but also a nice person. No need to snap at her. And this:

    “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify,” Clinton snapped back. “I think you’re trying to say I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons, and that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue, and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress we’re making.”

    That’s just dumb. She decides what she thinks Terry Gross is implying so she can repudiate it? There are far better ways of saying the same thing.

    The whole thing is dumb though. She’s supporting gay marriage. Yay. Let’s move on.

  23. 23
    Laertes says:

    Socialcons have got their shorts in a twist because they think they see a double-standard: To their way of thinking, lefties just chewed up some silicon valley wingnut for being against marriage equality in 2008, while giving lefties a pass for exactly the same thing.

    They’re palming a card, of course. They’re pretending that there’s no difference between half-assed support (“I favor civil unions”) and red-hot hostility (“I’m donating to prop 8!”.) Had Clinton donated to prop 8, or campaigned in favor of it, she’d be in serious trouble today.

    To which I just shake my head and chuckle. Your line of attack on HRC is that she’s too conservative? You guys are adorable. I just want to take a picture.

  24. 24
    aimai says:

    @Violet: I think just the opposite. I think Terry Gross’s point in asking the question 7 different times was pretty damned hostile and counterproductive. Terry is a nice person but what the fuck was up with that? I’d have snapped at her too. It was a shitty way to derail an interview.

  25. 25
    Suffern ACE says:

    I would much rather the election issues involve relitigating Vietnam than anything else. Gay marriage support in the 90s is a distraction from my core issue.

  26. 26
    Baud says:


    Yeah, I listened to the interview and was more annoyed with Gross, although Hillary was not all that great.

  27. 27
    dubo says:

    @Mnemosyne: Exactly my point. The recent media fad of looking at someone who holds, or used to hold, a position like yours, and trying to call liberals “hypocrites” by drawing an equivalence between that and the Jerry Falwells, is a huge pet peeve of mine right now :-p

  28. 28
    gbear says:

    Should be fun watching the candidates try to thread that needle.

    When you’ve got canditates in Oklahoma who are publicly saying that stoning gays to death is really the right thing to do although he wouldn’t introduce a bill that demanded that, even though it’s what the bible calls for so he’d totally support it, I’d say the camel has a really good chance of getting thru that needle first.

  29. 29
    WaterGirl says:

    Baud #1, PsiFighter37 #2 and seabe #3 said everything I wanted to say. Thanks guys!

    @PsiFighter37: I don’t know about wise, but I left you a reply on the previous thread.

  30. 30
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Laertes: In addition, I think a large number of people who were in favor of civil unions saw them as a way station on the the road full equality. A way to get important legal rights to a group of people in the fase of loud and implacable opposition to the idea of same sex marriage. In a way, it was a lot like DADT, a kludge that was better than the previous system but wasn’t good enough.

    ETA: What Mnem said as well.

  31. 31
    Laertes says:

    You need to charge the plate once in a while to keep pitchers honest. If they know they can throw inside all day, they’ll do it.

    If she takes a bite out of every interviewer, it’ll get old fast. But so long as she only does it once in a while, it goes to reinforce her tough, no-nonsense image.

  32. 32
    Violet says:

    @aimai: The whole thing was just stupid. Who the hell cares why she changed her mind and when she did? It’s not relevant to anything.

    That being a politician in her position should have a prepared answer for that kind of line of questioning and be prepared with an answer that doesn’t require getting upset. Maybe Terry Gross was being stupidly persistent. I didn’t listen to the interview. But she won’t be the only interviewer being stupidly persistent. Getting upset at that isn’t going to work in Clinton’s favor.

  33. 33
    dmsilev says:

    @gbear: True enough, though on the flip side you have things like this:

    Scott Walker Refuses To State A Position On Same-Sex Marriage

    Pressed again about whether he was perhaps rethinking his position on same-sex marriage, Walker demurred.
    “No,” he said, as quoted by the Journal-Sentinel. “I’m just not stating one at all.”

    Real profile in courage there.

  34. 34
    Zifnab25 says:

    @Baud: This is the one reason I think Hillary isn’t as front-runny as she appears. After 30 fucking years of public exposure, the woman *still* doesn’t seem ready for prime time. She would have been better off staying the Senate and working her way up the chain to Majority Leader, where she can launch a few fiery bombasts on CSPAN or Meet the Press and weather a bit of foot-in-mouth disease in her impenetrable NY Senate seat.

    She’s going to get outflanked on the left again, during the Dem primary, because that’s where she’s vulnerable. She’s going to hire a bunch of wasteful idiot campaign managers that can’t keep themselves off of FOX News, talking shit about her own base. And people are just going to hate dealing with the drama of it all by the time Super Tuesday rolls around.

    Unlike in ’08, the Dem field is looking less exciting. So maybe she won’t get “First Black President”-d to death this time around. But… I just can’t feel safe putting money on that woman to win elections.

  35. 35
    Morzer says:

    All those who were advocating for gay marriage 30 years ago, please, raise your hands.

    So can we take it as read that most of us changed our minds or at least thought differently about the issue over time?

    I don’t see why HRC gets bashed in here for doing something pretty much all of us have done.

    And I still don’t see why that interview was problematic. Lot of people seeing what they want to see in it, in my opinion.

  36. 36
    dubo says:

    No matter if you think Gross or Hillary came off worse here, the weird thing about it is WHY would an interviewer as experienced as Gross spend so much time pressing it? She could have spent that time on literally anything important, instead of trying to get Hillary to say “You got me, I’m completely insincere and have no principles, and I just want to announce to your audience that all I’ve ever done in my career is play politics, nyeh, nyeh”

    Come on, even if it’s true, of course she’s not going to cop to it

  37. 37
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @dmsilev: Yeah, the first of those marriages in Wisconsin took place a block and half from his office. It was a rather huge thing in the state. FWIW Mary Burke and the rest of the state Dems were having their convention when the decision came down and to a person were vocally supportive and happy about it.

  38. 38
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @dmsilev: The answer will not satisfy the anti-same sex marriage crowd, nor will it appease those who favor same sex marriage.

    Shit or get off the pot, asshole.

  39. 39
    Baud says:


    It wasn’t a good performance, and if she doesn’t improve by the time campaign season starts, she’ll be in trouble. But Obama had a horrible first debate with Romney. It happens.

    ETA: @Zifnab25:

  40. 40
    WaterGirl says:

    @Baud: I still think the reason Obama was so terrible in the first debate is that he just couldn’t wrap his head around the fact that romney was spewing lie after lie after lie, and Obama was completely thrown off by that.

  41. 41
    Just One More Canuck says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Thanks

  42. 42
    Corner Stone says:

    Ok, so HRC has now been criticized for giving a politician’s answer and also pushing back against an interviewer.
    WaterGirl, rikyrahrah, ruemara?
    How has HRC failed you today?

  43. 43
    Emma says:

    @Capt. Seaweed: Think about president Ted Cruz, hold your nose, and freaking vote for the Democrat? We’re all doing that.

  44. 44
    Tommy says:

    I am not a huge fan of Hillary. But I think she knows the hate that is the right. Experienced it first hand. She IMHO will fight. I’d like to see that for once.

  45. 45
    Baud says:


    Romney was shameless. But I think Obama said he made mistakes in his prep and strategy, so it was a perfect storm of various things.

  46. 46
    srv says:

    She further argued that “too many people believe they have a direct line to the Divine, and they never want to change their mind about anything, they’re never open to new information, and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. … And I think it’s good if people continue to change.”


    I punched those Dirty Fucking Hippies and there’s nothing wrong with that, even though they were right.

    I look forward to not having to play the PUMA in 2016.

  47. 47
    Morzer says:


    I have a vision of the scene in Life of Brian when he’s selling various animal parts. Maybe we can add “reluctantly Clinton-voting Democrats’ noses” to the list.

  48. 48
    Tom Q says:

    Put me with those more annoyed with Gross than Hillary during this exchange. Gross pressed the same point (essentially, “Admit you were a hypocrite!”) so many times I longed for a judge to step in and rule “Asked and answered”. To me, it wasn’t far off from what Hillary was talking about in another interview this week, when she said focusing on minutia related to Benghazi was minor-league stuff in a world that ought to aspire to major league performance. I expect this kind of picayune approach from the David Gregory’s of the world; I wouldn’t expect it from Gross.

  49. 49
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    I would much rather the election issues involve relitigating Vietnam than anything else.

    Before we do that in the general election, we have to relitigate Iraq first, during the primaries.

  50. 50
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    I’m still trying to figure out just how much good it will do us to have the White House while the Speaker of the House is a fucking Republican and the Senate is still subject to Republican mischief.President Hillary Clinton could nominate any number of Supreme Court Justices. Getting anyone to the left of John Roberts seated is another matter. Considering Bill’s list of legislative accomplishments I’d be careful what I wished for.

  51. 51
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Baud: While it’s true that Romney was shameless, it’s also true that Romney is shameless, and Romney will be shameless for the indefinite future.

    He’s utter, irredeemable scum, and that goes for all his spawn as well.

  52. 52
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: Think about 2000-2008.

  53. 53
    Morzer says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    Whoever we end up with in the White House, be it Clinton or some other Democrat, it beats the hell out of having Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/Rick Perry etc in there.

  54. 54
    Baud says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    President Hillary Clinton could nominate any number of Supreme Court Justices. Getting anyone to the left of John Roberts seated is another matter.

    C’mon, man. If there’s one area the distinction between the parties couldn’t be starker, it’s Supreme Court appointments.

  55. 55
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):
    Yeah, you’re right. President Clinton II would have figured out a way to go to war with Iran as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

  56. 56
    Emma says:

    @Morzer: We’d make a mint.

  57. 57
    Baud says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    It’s like the last episode of Star Trek TNG, when past, present, and future collide in a vortex of shamelessness.

  58. 58
    Morzer says:


    And who would you rather see making decisions about the safety net? I submit that, whatever our personal views of the corrupt and fallen HRC, the poor would rather see her running the show than Rand “Fuck the deserving poor” Paul and Minister of Kicking The Poors Paul Ryan.

  59. 59
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: If you feel that way, why did you bother to bring it up in the first place?

  60. 60
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    Well, hell yes there is a difference. I’m saying that nominating someone and getting them seated are two very different things. Nominating a lukewarm Justice in the interest of getting him or her past Republican obfuscation doesn’t strike me as a win.

  61. 61
    Baud says:


    That’s not even close to a question for me. There’s no conceivable Democratic nominee I would least vote for in the general election.

  62. 62
    Morzer says:

    Incidentally, if you’d like to think about one of the possible components of the next GOP administration:

    In her Facebook post, Palin cited heat, illness, unsanitary conditions and potential sexual exploitation at the holding facility as examples of “child abuse.” She then railed against the GOP’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful reform on issues like border security.

    “As a Christian I find it unforgivable to ignore this issue of overrunning border security into these conditions in southern states, and this one issue is just about driving me to renounce my Republican ties because, see, even leaders on the RIGHT side of the aisle haven’t exerted all Constitutional power to stop the madness,” she wrote. “A few have tried, but until they’re sent reinforcements, then atrocities like the child abuse and exploitation you’re now getting wind of will only get worse.”

    She then accused President Barack Obama of orchestrating the “crisis” in Arizona in order to advance his own immigration reform agenda.

    “In this case, Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration laws and his blatant suggestion that his chosen illegal activity will be rewarded are proof of his tyrannical tactics,” Palin wrote.

  63. 63
    Emma says:

    Say what you will about the Tea Partiers, they hang together. We damage our own…You know the source of those “even the liberal so-and-so” headlines? Us.

  64. 64
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    I brought it up because I’m heartbroken that my party seems unable to come up with a better nominee.

  65. 65
    Baud says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    If Hillary is the nominee and wins the general, the Dems will control the Senate, even assuming we lose it this year.

  66. 66
    WaterGirl says:

    @Corner Stone: You failed me, Corner Stone, by disrespecting rikyrah by referring to her as rikyrahrah.

    Other than that, I am having a lovely day.

  67. 67
    BBA says:

    I half-expect McConnell to dictate to whoever is president when the next vacancy arises, “You’re going to appoint Randy Barnett and we’ll reject anyone else.”

  68. 68
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: Has she been nominated? Has she even declared her candidacy?

  69. 69
    WaterGirl says:

    @Baud: Did you leave out a word, perhaps?

  70. 70
    Morzer says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Hey. c’mon, man. It takes time to lovingly handcraft a good fainting couch. We can’t be waiting until the facts are all in to do it – not and get that sweet, silky patina the true fainting couch devotee cherishes.

  71. 71
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    She has already let us down with her Supreme Court nominees.

  72. 72
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):
    You’re right;the book tour is just coincidental.

  73. 73
    Baud says:

    @Baud: @WaterGirl:

    wouldn’t at least

    Thanks, WG.

  74. 74
    WaterGirl says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: It can get really discouraging and it all feels hopeless. Thankfully, when that happens to me it only lasts a few days and then I get my fighting spirit back.

    I will be very unhappy if Clinton is our nominee, but a lot can happen between now and then, so I’m not slitting my wrists just yet.

    Don’t give up, Higgs. Some good things are happening, as well as the bad.

  75. 75
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: Is she making moves that a potential candidate would make? Yes, but the answer to both of my questions still remains “no.”

  76. 76
    eemom says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    I’m saying that nominating someone and getting them seated are two very different things.

    With due respect, I don’t understand why this meme keeps getting repeated here. Sotomayor and Kagan were seated. Supreme Court nominations are essentially immune from filibuster because it would be political suicide to perpetuate a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and that’s been true regardless of which party controlled the presidency or the Senate.

  77. 77
    Violet says:


    She IMHO will fight. I’d like to see that for once.

    What will she fight for? I think that’s a big question.

    I’ll vote for the Dem over the Republican for sure. That’s not really the issue. My preference is that the Dem is something other than Republican-lite.

  78. 78
    rikyrah says:

    What could be easier than saying, Bill was wrong for DADT and DOMA and so was I. I am so glad that I have evolved with the country.

    See. That was not hard.

    But then I am still waiting for an apology for the vote for Iraq.

  79. 79
    eemom says:


  80. 80
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:


    Thank you for that. It’s difficult for me to remain optimistic. I don’t expect to see a fire breathing lefty nominated by the Democrats. I would like to see a Democrat nominated by the Democrats.

  81. 81
    gwangung says:

    @Corner Stone: Real white guy answer here.

    Just saying.

  82. 82
    Baud says:


    I don’t know if you consider this an apology, but she says she was wrong in her book.

  83. 83
    eemom says:

    comments being eated

  84. 84
    Morzer says:


    Please, could we leave the innocent white male community (small as it may be) without the burden of being lumped in with Corny?

  85. 85

    I guess the bottom line for me is I changed my mind and think on many issues I am now on the right side of things, and it really doesn’t matter why I changed. I just did. I’m gonna give the same benefit of the doubt to Hillary, and I really don’t care about her motivations or whether it was politically expedient or what not. She’s on the right side of this issue, so I have better things to do than psychoanalyze her decision making process.

    As to civil unions, I supported them. My thought was the government had no business in marriage, and just change everyone’s “marriage” license to a civil union, allow gays and lesbians to enter civil unions, and leave the whole marriage crap up to your church. If they decide your civil union is worthy to their interpretation of sky jeebus, you can call yourself married.

    I kinda still wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business, to be honest.

  86. 86
    Morzer says:


    Also, she says:

    When I voted to authorize force in 2002, I said that it was ‘probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.’ I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.

    That seems like a pretty clear admission of error to me.

  87. 87
    JPL says:

    Gov. O’Malley didn’t have a great roll-out of Healthcare exchanges, but I don’t think that rules him out. I’d love Brown or Warren but that’s not gonna happen. My dream would be Sen. Whitehouse cuz I love his name.

    also.. I thought Clinton’s interview was no news. She is obvious under a microscope for this to make national news.

  88. 88
    seabe says:

    Look, I never said I wouldn’t vote for her in the GE. but why, why, why is there so much fucking pushback when we not only don’t have a nominee yet, but he invisible primary is just getting underway, let alone the actual one? Why are the people such as myself who do not like Hillary Clinton personally or politically made to feel like we are arguing to not vote in the GE?

    She is entitled. And that’s a problem.

  89. 89
    Violet says:

    @rikyrah: Yep. That’s a much better answer. It can even be tied to the march of civil rights, from Emancipation to women’s rights to more recent voting rights and so forth. Tie it to Democrats being for civil rights for everyone, etc. There’s a skillful way to do it and that wasn’t it no matter how much Terry Gross might have been harping on it.

    If any candidate for president doesn’t think interviewers will ask questions and be annoying interviewers then they’re not paying attention. The interviewer may be a dumbass and ask stupid questions but it’s the job of the candidate to be able to handle those kinds of situations.

  90. 90
    Baud says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole:

    I kinda still wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business, to be honest.

    Yep. If we could start from scratch, that would probably be the better way to go.

  91. 91
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole:

    I kinda still wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business, to be honest.

    Hell yes to that.

  92. 92
    Emma says:

    So if I understand it correctly, if she doesn’t fight back or tries to be politically careful in her answers, she’s a unprincipled Republican-lite; if she does, she’s a public relations disaster.

  93. 93
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Emma: Wasn’t it Henry Clay who said “I’d rather be right than have her president”?

  94. 94
    Morzer says:


    I view it differently. I wish religions weren’t in the marriage or acceptable relationship definition business. If marriage were a purely legal relationship administered by the government without reference to sexuality or faith, I think we’d all be a lot better off. Sure, have a religious ceremony if that floats your boat and you want to make some sort of particular commitment in the eyes of your God/gods/community – but it should be just a ceremony with no legal implications.

  95. 95
    JPL says:

    @Emma: I thought she did fine and it’s silly for this to be news. I’d rather she be asked what she would do in Iraq and Syria. Her evolution on gay rights doesn’t affect me at all. Her views on military strikes, does.

  96. 96
    Morzer says:


    If she apologizes, she’s insincere and parsing and cadging votes, if she doesn’t, she’s entitled, shameless, hasn’t learned from her mistakes.

  97. 97
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    The information available to many of us back in 2002 strongly suggested that the casus belli for going to war against Iraq was a tissues of lies. The reality on the ground of diverting troops from Afghanistan to Iraq was a monstrous tactical mistake. Plenty of people got it wrong wrt Iraq, most of them are Republicans.

  98. 98
    Baud says:


    I’m not sure how your second sentence is consistent with your last sentence.

  99. 99
    seabe says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: regarding the government get out the marriage business, that’s cool and stuff. I am against privileging couples over single parents and others that marriage inevitably entitles, but remember this:

    Occasional reminder that the state’s interest in marriage is about 70% how to deal with property at the end of the marriage due to death or divorce, 20% tax treatment, and 10% some other random legal/rights issues. Yes I made up those numbers but you get the point.

  100. 100
    Carolinus says:


    Agreed. It was truly odd performance by Gross. She opened by questioning the sincerity of Hillary’s previous positions, which seemed to me pointless as no competent politician would ever cop to that. Hillary told her she was flat out wrong in what she was suggesting, and went into where she currently stands on marriage equality. Gross then followed with another loaded question:

    “DOMA was actually signed by your husband when he was president. In spite of the fact that he signed it, were you glad at this point that the Supreme Court struck some of it down?”

    The implication being here that even though she said she supports marriage equality, it’s possible she’s opposed to the repudiation of DOMA out of some kind of pettiness over its association with her husband.

    For her next question Gross asks Hillary if she evolved in her position on marriage equality, and gets a response in the affirmative, though she’d clearly already implied it in her first answer.

    Gross responds by continuing to argue her theory about Hillary having operated in bad faith (having been a secret supporter of gay marriage). After Hillary responds, she then hits Hillary for failing to answer the “evolved” question, even though she did.

    “I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer my question about whether you evolved …”

    And it just keeps on like that, alternating between her pushing her political calculus theory and again asking variations of the evolution question.

  101. 101
    WaterGirl says:


    So if I understand it correctly, if she doesn’t fight back or tries to be politically careful in her answers, she’s a unprincipled Republican-lite; if she does, she’s a public relations disaster.

    I think that’s too simplistic.

    She could have used humor to defuse the situation or just make a clear statement as suggested above (Bill was wrong for DADT and DOMA and so was I. I am glad to see the country evolving on these issues). The problem is that she’s not skilled in that sort of thing; she gets defensive instead, and that doesn’t help her case.

  102. 102
    srv says:


    She then accused President Barack Obama of orchestrating the “crisis” in Arizona in order to advance his own immigration reform agenda.

    “In this case, Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration laws and his blatant suggestion that his chosen illegal activity will be rewarded are proof of his tyrannical tactics,” Palin wrote.

    This really is bouncing into Fast & Furious and Sandy Hook being conspiraicies to overturn the 2nd Ammendment territory.

  103. 103
    Morzer says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    Most of the country ignored or never saw that information – and plenty of Democrats rushed to give Bush anything he wanted. I think we should do some collective learning, rather than heaping the blame for our collective sins on Hillary Clinton’s shoulders. Those who have always been pure of heart on every issue are, of course, welcome to cast the first stone.

  104. 104
    Emma says:

    @Morzer: You know, I really don’t care if she’s “cadging votes”; I lost my political virginity a long time ago. I don’t expect politicians to be moral. At this point in history I’d take Vlad Tepes over what the Republicans have put on the table.

  105. 105
    Morzer says:


    Do you honestly expect her to publicly denounce her husband in those terms? Like it or not, very few people would be willing to do that to their spouse, whatever his or her faults. I am not a big Clinton fan, but I really think people are being unrealistic about what they can expect anyone to do to their partner of many years.

  106. 106
    lamh36 says:

    @seabe: It the same as before, it’s the PUMA supporters and Clintonistas’ coming out of the woodwork in the case of a HRC nom that will piss people off.

    HRC certainly can’t control her supporters anymore than anyone could, but she certainly can chose to fan the flames by implying that the Obama campaign by asking her to critic Palin was asking her to beat up on another woman (rather than oh, IDK being a surrogate for her candidate) for nothing (nevermind all the bullshit Palin spewed that rightly deserved critic), or using her memoirs to re-write history or to “whitesplain” Bill’s comments, that infuriated even Clinton supporter Jim freakn’ Clyburn felt were suggestive, to Black folk.

    I see HRC strategy as this, she’ll assume she’ll have guaranteed Dem voters already in the bag (Obama’s coalition mostly), sow who is she gonna try to make a play for those white voters, including a large number of white women, who wouldn’t vote for Obama and instead voted for Romney, but who could possibly see themselves voting for a woman (a white woman). The question is what is she gonna do or be willing to do to attract those voters without pissing off those Obama’s coalition voters she definitely will need.


  107. 107
    Morzer says:


    Right. I mean, if a politician can’t cadge votes, who can? And given how high the stakes are, I’d stand behind Vlad Tepes any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

  108. 108
    Emma says:

    @WaterGirl: On the other hand I see her as getting fed up with the pummeling she’s gotten over the years and deciding to fight back. I guess it’s all in the perception.

  109. 109
    NotMax says:


    Dang it, fresh out.

    (Mental note: Visit Amazon to order some more stones.)


  110. 110
    JGabriel says:

    Doug Mataconis:

    In 1996, for example, a Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 27% supported it.

    So sometimes there’s a 27%* that’s good and righteous and ahead of the curve. Good to know.

    Do we call it an anti-crazification factor, or a sanity-cation factor?

    (*Insert obligatory recognition, once again, that John Rogers is a bloody fucking genius.)

  111. 111
    JDM says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    Nominating a lukewarm Justice in the interest of getting him or her past Republican obfuscation doesn’t strike me as a win.

    Lukewarm vs. Scalia (or worse)? Even if lukewarm is as good as a Democratic president can or will get appointed, lukewarm wins by a mile.

  112. 112
    Baud says:


    The question is what is she gonna do or be willing to do to attract those voters without pissing off those Obama’s coalition voters she definitely will need.

    I agree. That’s one of the difficult tasks she will have. She’ll also have to figure out how to embrace Obama’s policies while running as her own person.

  113. 113
    Mnemosyne says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole:

    Here’s the thing, though, and the realization that made me change my mind: all marriages are civil unions. You do not have to be married in a church at all — you can go down to the courthouse and the clerk behind the counter can fix you up on the spot. And if you try to have a church wedding without that piece of paper from the government, they will refuse to do the ceremony, because it’s the license from the state that matters, not the religious ceremony.

    Ironically, getting married myself was part of what pivoted me to thinking everyone should be able to get married, because I realized that it’s not some kind of spiritual joining, it’s a contract. Our marriage license arrived on the same paper they use to print car titles.

    Once I understood that every current marriage is a civil union, then supporting a separate “civil union” system to do the exact same thing just seemed stupid.

  114. 114
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    Christ Jaysus, I was naive enough to support Eugene McCarthy back in ’68 so my political judgement is far from perfect. Clinton may well be the nominee. So be it. The odds are good that I won’t even see the end of her first term. It’s just sad to me that a lying, triangulating superannuated Baby Boomer my be the best we got.

  115. 115
    Emma says:

    @Morzer: We have crappy choices SO FAR. There’s still a while to go, and the situation is volatile. But again, we don’t need saints at this point. We need effin’ Lyndon Johnson.

  116. 116
    Keith G says:


    All those who were advocating for gay marriage 30 years ago, please, raise your hands.

    30 years ago, I didn’t know any Gay folk advocating for marriage and I was living in one of the largest Gay communities in the US.

    From the mid 80s til the late 90s we were too busy burying our friends and loved ones (and pushing for better medical care) to be worried about higher order needs.

  117. 117
    WaterGirl says:

    @Morzer: I have no opinion about this Chris Hedges guy in the earlier thread. I had never heard of him; I am totally neutral.

    I really like and respect President Obama, even when I disagree with him, as I sometimes do. He gets the benefit of the doubt from me because I trust him.

    Hillary Clinton has done some good things, and I appreciate that she took the high road and accepted the cabinet position President Obama offered her. But I have issues with her honesty and integrity from 2008, and I haven’t forgiven her for the racism displayed by her campaign. Bottom line? I don’t really trust her, so she gets what I think of as the “negative benefit of the doubt”.

    That doesn’t mean that I think every thing she does is awful. But my first instinct is never to cut her some slack or assume the best until I have further information. At best I am neutral; at worst she still has to dig herself out of the hole she dug with me.

  118. 118
    seabe says:

    @lamh36: yeah probably, but this blog isn’t full of clintonistas I don’t think. So why the pushback here? Her interview was garbage; her politics are garbage. Yelling at me that Republicans are worse is so ridiculously stupid to anyone remotely active on a political blog like this that I don’t even know why it’s getting said, except to punch down people who aren’t wiling to accept HRC as auto-nominee. But that’s what I would expect from Jeralyn Merrit or Lambert at nakedcapitalism.

  119. 119
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    I haven’t read all the comments yet, but the bits of the interview I saw reminded me of another time when Hillary blew up when questioned in the Congo in 2009. Maybe the translation was accurate, and maybe in the context of the rest of the day it was appropriate for her to emphasize her position. But her anger still seemed excessive.

    Terry Gross has always seemed extremely respectful and a good interviewer when I’ve listened to her show. Even if Hillary was pissed off at the question, she should have been more diplomatic about it.

    My $0.02.


  120. 120
    Morzer says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    Dear HBM, I hope you will be with us for many years to come. Take comfort, of a sort, in this thought – that very few politicians emerge particularly well after detailed scrutiny and yet, flawed as they may be, if pushed the right way they can still be the vessel for great achievements or making the world a somewhat better place.

  121. 121
    Tommy says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: In the first election I could vote, I not only voted for but campaigned (as a northern in Louisiana I might add) for Jerry Brown :). Full circle he might run again.

  122. 122
    Morzer says:


    What we need, before we find the perfect president, is to take back the House and win a lot more statehouses. Once we have those, our shiny new LBJ might be able to get something done.

  123. 123
    WaterGirl says:

    @Morzer: You make a good point. I will have to ponder that.

    But she’s going to have to figure out a way to handle that sort of thing – her husband was the president of the united states and his actions and decisions had consequences.

    DOMA. DADT. NAFTA. etc. If she can’t find a way to handle that gracefully, I think she shouldn’t run for president.

  124. 124
    elftx says:

    You should add Female who can’t control herself

    because this is exactly how that article is portraying her

  125. 125
    lectric lady says:

    @Violet: Clue! LISTEN TO IT. She didn’t snap. You are totally buying into what the trolls want you to. You all who haven’t LISTENED to it a very sorry lot!

  126. 126
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @seabe: I didn’t support Clinton in ’08 and am not in her camp now.* At this point, I am interested in not having anyone with a decent chance of getting the nomination be pre-shit-upon before the the 2014 midterms have even happened.

    * At the moment, I am O’Malley-curious.

  127. 127
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    I have grown too old. I saw the ship of state right itself after Nixon and then remain with a hard list after Reagan. I know better than to hope for a left-leaning nominee. I just wish to hell that we’d stop moving to the right.

  128. 128
    Emma says:

    @Morzer: Well, yes. But that’s a given. I know, sometimes we need to remind our brethren. But I keep coming back to the Supreme Court…

  129. 129
    WaterGirl says:


    What we need, before we find the perfect president, is to take back the House and win a lot more statehouses. Once we have those, our shiny new LBJ might be able to get something done.

    YES. YES. YES.

  130. 130
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    What a lonely task. Congratulations for not becoming soured on politics altogether. I have friends from the service down in Luzianne, you’re lucky that you didn’t get your ass shot clean off.

  131. 131
    Baud says:


    I’ll have what she’s having.

  132. 132
    Tommy says:

    @WaterGirl: I hope I am stating the obvious here. My mom is not my father. Bill isn’t Hillary. She is a free functioning human. An adult. I hope she is treated as such. I know this won’t happen. Not the way she will be presented. But we ought to push back on this. I mentioned my mom. She often thinks totally different then my father. She can thank for herself.

  133. 133
    Jay C says:

    I think Hillary Clinton’s (or any national politician’s) opinions or support/indifference/opposition to SSM in the past is WAY less of a relevancy than their support for it now: HRC may have been lukewarm on the issue 20 years ago; but whatever policies President Hillary Clinton might push for or support from the White House after 2016, I can’t imagine her signing off on any legislation curtailing or abrogating anyone’s civil rights; or acquiescing to discriminatory legislation. Whereas I can easily imagine any number of Republicans, as President, doing exactly that (under the holy-holy rubric of “religious freedom” of course).

    That assclown in Oklahoma hemming-and-hawing about stoning gays to death probably isn’t as much of a fringe outlier as we’d like to imagine: think about having the Oval Office occupied by one of campaign endorsers: it could happen….

  134. 134
    piratedan says:

    @Morzer: well his placement of those headless bodies in the Arizona desert was key, as was the slipping of that minor sedative into Governor Brewer’s drink just before the debate… still, not all plans have successful outcomes….

  135. 135
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:


    as was the slipping of that minor sedative into Governor Brewer’s drink just before the debate…

    So 2/3 of a bottle of Scotch is a minor sedative these days?

  136. 136
    HRA says:

    Terry Gross succeeded where Diane Sawyer failed. It’s no secret about HRC having a temper. She came out with it in the 2008 primary campaign. Still her temper is not the biggest baggage being carried if she becomes the nominee for president. It’s Bill “you all get 2 for the price of one” Clinton getting a third term. Hey that’s what the wind is blowing around my area. I am only the messenger. Bottom line is not being happy with a Clinton candidacy and not going to vote for a TP or similar other candidate of the opposite party means no vote.

  137. 137
    Citizen Alan says:


    What could be easier than saying, Bill was wrong for DADT and DOMA and so was I. I am so glad that I have evolved with the country.

    Personally, I have a lot of good reasons for disliking Bill Clinton, but I give him a pass for gay rights. People forget just how much of an extraordinary sea change there has been on this issue over the last 20 years. Having lived through that era, I am of the deeply held belief that, had Clinton pushed for gay rights back in the 90’s, we may well have gotten the anti-gay Constitutional Amendment that the Repukes were pushing for. YMMV.

  138. 138
    Anne Laurie says:


    Yelling at me that Republicans are worse is so ridiculously stupid to anyone remotely active on a political blog like this that I don’t even know why it’s getting said, except to punch down people who aren’t wiling to accept HRC as auto-nominee.

    How long have you been a Democrat? The first order of business for us usually has to be corralling our fellow Dems into accepting that someone not perfect is going to get the nomination — that stamping our feet & holding our breath until the reincarnated JFK (but with LIncoln’s vision and LBJ’s legislative skills!) rides down from heaven on a rainbow leads to horrible outcomes like St. Ronnie of Reagan and the C-Plus Augustus. If it’s not HRC in 2016, it’s gonna be another “flawed” candidate — that insurance whore Joe Biden, or Sherrod the Terrible on TV, or Some Mook From Whom Nobody Knows.

    The Repubs, curse them, have a natural advantage with the authoritarians who’ll fall in line for whichever face gets put on the poster. We Dems are a proud and skittish crew, and need perpetual reminders that the alternative is almost never more palatable than Less-Worse.

  139. 139
    WaterGirl says:

    @Baud: made me laugh!

  140. 140
    Lavocat says:

    Sure, sure, why not?

    After all, it doesn’t matter WHEN I stopped torturing you – only that I ultimately did.

    No harm, no foul, right?

    When the fuck has a Clinton ever been bothered by this little thing called ethics?

  141. 141
    Morzer says:

    @Anne Laurie:

    Holy Ralph Nader, Patron Saint of punishment for our inability to accept our fellow humans as imperfect, pray for us.

  142. 142
    piratedan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): well the ugly rumor is that our Cactus Barbie is more of a gin drinker :-) (sorry that was evil of me and my apologies to any recovering and coping alcoholics)

  143. 143
    Jay C says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole: @Mnemosyne:

    I used to have pretty much the same attitudes towards “civil unions” – I thought if gay couples wanted to commit to/”marry” each other, the state (any state) should accommodate them. And that legally-recognized “civil unions” were a reasonable alternative in the (then-)absence of any other legal structure allowing them to do so. But eventually, I came to realize that a legal “contract” giving the participating couple all the same rights as a “marriage” differed from a “marriage” only in semantic/definitional terms: which seemed to me to be a petty and (legally) meaningless distinction. So now my viewpoint is “Sure! Why the Hell Not??.”

  144. 144
    Citizen Alan says:


    Still her temper is not the biggest baggage being carried if she becomes the nominee for president. It’s Bill “you all get 2 for the price of one” Clinton getting a third term.

    I hate to say it, but I kinda feel the same way. I have such a visceral dislike of Bill Clinton at this point that it seems unbearable for him to be the man who sets the standard for all “First Husbands” going forward.

  145. 145
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @piratedan: Amendment cheerfully accepted.

  146. 146
    Anoniminous says:


    All those who were advocating for gay marriage 30 years ago, please, raise your hands.

    30 years ago “gay marriage” wasn’t on my short list, I was more concerned about my gay friends dying.

  147. 147
    Morzer says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    That, for my money, is actually the strongest argument against HRC. I really don’t trust Bill around the fat cats he so obviously loves to have stroking his ego. Perhaps we could appoint him ambassador to Davos for the full extent of HRC’s presidency and forbid him to reenter the country until it ends?

  148. 148
    WaterGirl says:

    @Morzer: hahaha. you grew up catholic, didn’t you?

  149. 149
    eemom says:

    test 2

  150. 150
    Morzer says:


    No, but I’ve known quite a few Catholics and read a certain amount of Catholic fiction. I suspect Tim Powers is ultimately to blame for my invocation of Holy Ralph Nader. Although, on second thoughts, Charlie Pierce should probably share some of the guilt.

  151. 151
    WaterGirl says:

    @Morzer: It was the similarity to “Mother Mary blah blah blah, pray for us” that made me think you were catholic. I don’t think we ever prayed to ralph nader, but if your form is right, it’s probably okay!

  152. 152
    CaseyL says:

    Hillary is sick of the MSM, and it shows. I applaud her for that, because I too am sick of the MSM – and they haven’t been out to get me for 30-odd years.

    Maybe she could and should “handle it better” – use humor or something; but I don’t think she’s good at off the cuff humor. But she has put up with so much shit over the years, I’m not at all surprised if her capacity to smile while eating a shit sandwich is completely gone.

  153. 153
    Eric U. says:

    @Morzer: I thought gay marriage was a no-brainer 30 years ago. I figured that republicans couldn’t oppose it since it was marriage and committment. Can’t believe how far they have sunk and how naive I was. I was for unions back in the ’90s, because I figured it achieved the goal. I was also for DADT because I didn’t figure that full equality would fly their either. Oh well.

  154. 154
    seabe says:

    @Anne Laurie: I wouldn’t call myself a Democrat except in name. I would have voted for Kshama Sawant over the Democrat in Seattle, for example.

    So considering I am 25 years old and have “supported” Democrats since I could vote (and years before that, if you get down to it), my whole political life. My parents are evangelical Christians who think baby Jesus will be back any day now.

  155. 155
    David Koch says:

    @eemom: not completely true. the thugs did successfully filibuster Abe Fortas in 1968.

  156. 156
    seabe says:

    @Anne Laurie: also JFK was a terrible president as far as I’m concerned, and a warmonger.

    I need no reminding. State power matters.

  157. 157
    Morzer says:


    Not to mention making Bill Clinton look like a shy boy on his first date where matters sexual were concerned.

  158. 158
    amk says:

    Hillary’s view on teh ghey is least of her problems.

  159. 159
    J R in WV says:

    I have heard noise about Jim Webb running for president. I would vote for him in the primary, just knowing what I know now. He, like our honorable host, John, was a R once, and now is a Dem. Shows an ability to learn and grow!

    He can write a book about history and make it enjoyable, at least for folks who like that kind of thing. Smart and well educated, as opposed to C- W Shrub.

    He has a good military background, so the R’s would have trouble nailing with with the weak on military stuff. Well spoken, seems like a nice guy.

    Anybody know anything bad about him, other than he’s from Virginia? Those of us from West (by gawd) Virginia sometimes have trouble with some folks from`VA,

  160. 160
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @J R in WV:

    He, like our honorable host, John, was a R once, and now is a Dem. Shows an ability to learn and grow!

    Actually, he has said that he was a Republican because he thought the Dems were nuts on foreign policy. He is too right for me and I don’t buy into his Scots-Irish schtick.

  161. 161
    eemom says:


  162. 162
    WereBear says:

    @Morzer: I’d stand behind Vlad Tepes any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

    I’d always prefer to stand behind Vlad Tepes.

  163. 163
    WaterGirl says:

    @J R in WV: He’s way too right for me, too. I would not want him as president.

  164. 164
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @J R in WV: He pissed me off when, immediately after Brown won in MA, he said the Senate should put off the vote on the PPACA (Obamacare) until Brown was seated.

    He’s not a traditional Democrat. For instance, he supports the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Some of his Senate votes are listed here.

    I’m happy that he defeated George Allen to take that Senate seat, and maybe a Democrat like him is the only kind that could have beaten him at the time. I don’t think he would make a good President (but he might do well in DOD or something like that).



  165. 165
    seabe says:

    @J R in WV: hell no. Hillary would be better than that nucking fut. I’ve met him a few times.

    Let’s just say that aside from his right wing views, he’s not too civilized when it comes to teh womenz

  166. 166
    raven says:

    @J R in WV: Yea, fuck him

    From Jim Webb:

    Having been involved in veterans’ issues since the 1970s, I know many veterans who in earlier days spoke of their disdain for Kerry but are now holding their fire. Kerry’s negatives, however, do not automatically become Bush’s positives, particularly when the focus of many now is on America’s involvement in postwar Iraq. And in that context, the most important question is how — or whether — each candidate proposes to end the United States’ military presence there.

    To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). In the early 1970s, this small organization — never more than 7,000 veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million — became the darling of the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the positive feelings most felt after serving.

    Kerry and his VVAW compatriots portrayed their fellow veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their service. While this might have fit a small minority, the most accurate survey, done by the Harris Poll in 1980, showed that 91% of those who went to Vietnam were “glad they served their country,” 74% “enjoyed their time in the military” and 89% agreed with the statement that “our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win.”

    Kerry’s own comments were filled with hyperbolic exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he testified that fellow veterans had routinely “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” With those words, he defamed a generation of honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he owes them a full and complete apology.

  167. 167
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @seabe: That reminds me – he’s lucky he didn’t get arrested for bringing a gun (or having an aid bring his gun) to a Senate office building.


  168. 168
    Corner Stone says:

    @WaterGirl: Heck. She’s an uncritical cheerleader of the current administration. Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah.
    Sorry that’s not helping you, but let’s see anyone say that isn’t true.

  169. 169
    Corner Stone says:

    @gwangung: Heck. Ouch.

  170. 170
    Ruckus says:

    Hillary had a perfect opportunity in the late 90s to not stick by Bill and yet she did so. I thought then that she was a class act for the way she handled the entire mess. I’m not a particular fan of hers but geezz she is supposed to be the perfect person? Not too this, not too that. She should be funnier, she should do crappy interviews better, she, she, she, isn’t the person I’d like her to be…. If we keep up this shit storm of stupidity I may have to change my mind and give her some support, just on general principle. She wasn’t president, Bill was. She wasn’t any official political person, she was first lady. What did she do wrong as first lady? Nothing I’ve heard of. What did she do wrong as Senator? Best I can tell is she didn’t give us world peace. Same for SoS. Did she make a big mess of anything? Did things in her corner of the world get better?
    There is a reason most of us don’t run for political office. Personal issues, we give really bad interviews, can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Not everyone has the grace and charm of the current president, nor the speaking ability. I’ve given interviews on TV, I’ve spoken publicly, they don’t scare me but they are not easy tasks. The very, very small limelight I’ve been in was not that much fun, I can imagine the view from the top of the heap is a lot less friendly.
    Remember, the president has an actual job, not just shaking hands and smiling for the cameras. I’m far more worried that someone would be a ruthless bastard like romney than I am they couldn’t give an interview up to the very highest standards, one that few on earth could manage.

  171. 171
    eemom says:

    wrt Jim Webb, I enthusiastically supported him in the dark days of 2006 when he overcame what then seemed impossible odds to clobber the despicable George Allen — with massive help from Allen’s own “macaca” suicide. And I had some respect for him thereafter as what he appeared to be, a non-politician, a guy who thought for himself etc.

    He lost for me good and all when he dumped on the ACA, however. The End. Heartily second raven’s fuck him.

  172. 172
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @eemom: No test?

  173. 173
    Lurking Canadian says:

    @Morzer: high stakes…Tepes…behind…I think you just did something there but I’m a little too drunk to perceive it except around the edges

  174. 174
    WaterGirl says:

    @Corner Stone: I can’t argue with cheerleader, not sure about the uncritical part. Either way, I just think it’s rude to play with commenter names as an insult, especially here on BJ. Maybe that’s an old-fashioned view, but it sets me off.

    Is it rude when I refer to Boehner as Boner? Damn straight it is, but I don’t mind disrespecting him because he’s not worthy of my respect, and he’s not someone I interact with.

  175. 175
    eemom says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Was trapped in spam hell for a while due to an obscure situation that would take a while to explain but summarizable thusly: John Cole is my hero.


  176. 176
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Lurking Canadian: It’s Țepeș. It changes the pronunciation. Tsepesh.



    Was trapped in spam hell for a while due to an obscure situation that would take a while to explain but summarizable thusly: John Cole is my hero.

    I am so sorry.

  177. 177
    Lurking Canadian says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): I know how to say it. I *don’t* know how to make my iPhone spell it.

  178. 178
    Corner Stone says:

    @WaterGirl: Heck that’s not too bad. I guess I can live with that assessment.
    Heck I was expecting a lot worse than that.

  179. 179
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Lurking Canadian: Fair enough.

  180. 180
    Steve from Antioch says:

    @Morzer: DOMA was passed in 1995, so that is really the relevant date, not 30 years ago, don’t you think?

    And, DOMA would not have been drafted or passed were there not already a credible push underway for gay marriage – so its not like gay marriage was a completely novel concept at the time.

  181. 181
    Violet says:

    @lectric lady: I read the transcript provided in the linked article. That’s what I based my comment on. From what I read, I got wasn’t impressed with her response. It’s not “trolls getting to me.” It’s my own observation.

  182. 182
    Corner Stone says:

    @Violet: Heck. Ugh.

  183. 183
    KS in MA says:


    I agree. Gross was being a jerk. Clinton gave about 7 perfectly reasonable answers to the questions, and Gross should have had the grace to accept them.

  184. 184
    notoriousJRT says:


    This is where I came down, as well. I didn’t even think Clinton “snapped” (double standard for females, anyone)? I thought she was firm and stood up for herself. I personally do not get the kerfluffle.

  185. 185
    Cassidy says:

    We need a real liberal like Greenwald or Snowden to run.

  186. 186
    notoriousJRT says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:
    So what are you gonna do? Stay home with the lights off and write fan mail and send donations to Dennis Kucinich? Give me a somewhat hawkish very bright social liberal over a certainly hawkish stone conservative (of varying intellectual “gifts,” ahem Rick Perry) any day.

  187. 187
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Cassidy: They both have residency issues.

  188. 188
    Suffern ACE says:

    @raven: Webb is one of those who in his attempts to win back his beloved Appalachian scots Irish will drive more democrats out than he will gain at this juncture. Think of chasing tweety’s uncle. Fear with that kind of candidate that every trend that progressives don’t like would be allowed to continue while everything else would stall. That’s usually what is meant when we’re told to slow down. If he is serious about restoring worker rights, fine. But he’d better really be able to do something about that.

  189. 189
    Violet says:

    @Suffern ACE: I really wish we could have a third Obama term. I think he’d win over the clown car Republicans that will be on the ballot.

  190. 190
    Aunt Kathy says:

    I listened, I don’t think there was any testiness, HRC kept a smile in her voice pretty much the whole time.

    But she DID need a better answer. It reminds me of that movie, “Working Girl,” where Sigourney Weaver gets caught poaching Melanie Griffith’s ideas. Somebody asks her how she came up with that idea, and she hems and haws, and “I’ll have to check my notes, uuhhh.” The Melanie Griffith character, on the other hand, can pinpoint almost the exact day and time inspiration struck. Hillary could have said that she was talking to her daughter and she realized that the younger generation had it right. Or that her work in the State Dept made her realize that the old ways were ridiculous. Great, she evolved. Anything in particular bring about that evolution? We already know that Obama “got evolved” by Biden.
    Even if she serves up a lie, she needs to have a better answer.

  191. 191
    Corner Stone says:

    @Violet: Heck of course he would.

  192. 192
    Morzer says:

    @Steve from Antioch:

    No, I don’t. My point is about people changing their minds over time, not about the specifics of DOMA. How about you answering some of the questions people put to you about gun control before you try dishonestly changing other people’s arguments?

  193. 193
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Steve from Antioch: Could you honestly raise your hand in response to the question asked? I couldn’t. I thought civil unions were the best that could be expected for te American populace and I thought that was a stretch. Also too, I put no effort into it, so I claim no credit for it.

  194. 194
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Morzer: Drive by?

  195. 195
    JoyfulA says:

    @Mnemosyne: We’ve been doing church weddings without that piece of paper from the government for years, for our member gay couples. We’ve had to call them commitment ceremonies rather than marriages, though, until the past couple of weeks.

  196. 196
    Kay says:

    If Clinton is the candidate Obama will of course campaign for her. Which is pretty funny to think about, how they were against, beside, along with and then will be beside again, over what will be a nearly a decade when it’s all done.

    You wonder if they saw this long future link stretching out before them in those 2008 debates :)

  197. 197
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Kay: Of course Obama will campaign for her. I am honestly surprised by the anti-Clinton vitriol expressed on this site. She isn’t my first choice, but damn….

  198. 198
    Mnemosyne says:


    Ah, but that’s kind of the point: a straight couple would have a harder time getting people to take their commitment ceremony seriously since most people would be thinking, Why don’t you just get married? And a straight couple would have to come up with all kinds of legal and moral justifications to explain why they didn’t just get married.

    When gay couples were shut out of marriage, it made sense to have a separate ceremony so they could be socially joined, even if it wasn’t legally binding. But in states where it’s legal, people will start thinking, Why don’t you just get married?

    (I notice that the website of the Unitarian Universalist church where we got married in 2006 doesn’t offer commitment ceremonies on their website anymore now that we got that fucked-up Prop 8 bullshit straightened out. It’s all, Hey, everybody, stop on by and get married!)

  199. 199
    ruemara says:

    @Corner Stone: your hypocrisy valve is stuck open.

  200. 200
    Corner Stone says:

    @ruemara: Heck no one even knows what stupid fucking point you’re failing to make here.

  201. 201
    Rafer Janders says:

    @John (MCCARTHY) Cole:

    I kinda still wish the government wasn’t in the marriage business, to be honest.

    Government isn’t in the marriage business. Government is in the custody, management, and dissolution of commonly held property and assets business.

    Because the complicated part isn’t really people getting married. The complicated part is when those people file taxes jointly, have joint bank accounts, buy a house together, sell that house, get divorced, argue about child custody, enter a hospital and need a spouse to make the medical and legal decisions, die and have property to distribute, etc. Government has to be in that business because it’s all horribly complicated and emotional and messy and involves multiple people, many of them minors, with conflicting interests, and people aren’t good at managing that stuff themselves without clear rules and regulations laid down by society.

  202. 202
    Joey Maloney says:

    @lectric lady: I listened. What I heard was Clinton dancing around when there was no need to. She said a whole bunch of words that weren’t a response to the question. Then when Terry pointed out that she hadn’t answered the question whe said a whole bunch more words that still didn’t answer the question, and then when Terry pressed her again she got mad and accused Terry of…well, of what I’m not exactly sure.

    At the very least that was an inept way to handle it. If that’s the best she can do with a nominally friendly interviewer I have serious doubts about her ability to look good during an 18-month campaign.

  203. 203
    Corner Stone says:


    But she’s going to have to figure out a way to handle that sort of thing – her husband was the president of the united states and his actions and decisions had consequences.

    This is a batshit insane standard. I mean, you can hold it, if you care to. But you’ll be no better than any Fox News fucking nutjob when you apply it.

  204. 204
    Matt McIrvin says:

    I think 30 years ago was right about when I became clueful enough to support gay rights, though it was partly on selfish “enemy of my enemy” grounds, since the biggest homophobes I knew were also creeps in general.

    If you’d asked me about same-sex marriage then, I’d probably have said “why not?”, but I doubt I saw it as a possibility that would ever be seriously considered in my lifetime; in 1986 the Supreme Court was upholding the constitutionality of sodomy laws.

    By the time DOMA passed I was definitely opposed to the law and thought Bill Clinton was being craven for supporting it, but I think I still figured he probably couldn’t do otherwise and get reelected.

  205. 205
    JW says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Hello?

    All marriages are “civil unions”. Look: you go get a marriage license. Just like a car license or a license for your dog. It’s a legal contract between two adults and the state. The church of your choice has absolutely nothing to do with it, save you want to throw a whoop-de-doo and choose to include your church in the festivity. And sappy music and all.

  206. 206
    Jewish Steel says:

    Terry Gross is a supercilious puke. If HCR is going to lay the lumber to NPR regular like, she’s just converted an obot.

  207. 207
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Jewish Steel: uh, HRC, that is.

  208. 208
    Ronzoni Rigatoni says:

    @WaterGirl: “You grew up catholic, didn’t you?” Those of us who had this peculiar fate inflicted on us would just as easily be saying “Ora pro nobis,” right?

  209. 209
    WaterGirl says:

    @Corner Stone:

    But she’s going to have to figure out a way to handle that sort of thing – her husband was the president of the united states and his actions and decisions had consequences.

    This is a batshit insane standard. I mean, you can hold it, if you care to. But you’ll be no better than any Fox News fucking nutjob when you apply it.

    Me in response:
    Bill was president. Hillary will be asked about this stuff; Hillary will have to figure out a way to handle it gracefully. That’s not bat shit insane. That she’s going to be asked is a reality; that she’ll have to figure out a graceful way to handle it is the truth, I believe, if she wants to campaign well.

  210. 210
    WaterGirl says:

    @Ronzoni Rigatoni: I did grow up catholic, with the latin mass. Most of the latin seems to have fallen out of my ears. I do recall Dona nobis pacem, though, probably because of the song.

  211. 211
    ruemara says:

    @Corner Stone: least of all the utterly stupid fucking hypocritical called Corner Stone. So maybe he should shut the fuck up and quit pretending he has an ounce of comprehension on what I think about HRC, since he is just that stupid and a hypocrite.

  212. 212
    Corner Stone says:

    @ruemara: What, exactly, is hypocritical about asking you how you feel about HRC?
    Jesus fuck but you’re dense.

  213. 213
    Corner Stone says:

    @WaterGirl: She’s going to be asked about every policy decision, vote or utterance every D politician ever said. I disagree with the view that somehow she’s responsible and/or responsible for defending another individual’s decisions when they were president simply because she happened to be married to him.
    She’s going to be asked about the OG Jimmy Carter, WJC and President Obama’s policies and decisions. IMO, that’s a better formulation to approach a potential candidacy but, meh.

  214. 214
    Rarely Posts says:

    First, when she changed positions and how she changed positions is important to the primary. I haven’t decided who I’ll vote for in the primary, but it’s obvious that both O’Malley and Cuomo deserve some significant credit for bringing gay marriage to their respective states. Now, I’m not voting for Cuomo because he’s bad on economics and the environment, but I’m currently leaning towards O’Malley for a variety of reasons. And he deserves serious credit for pushing hard to get gay marriage passed in Maryland both in the legislature and then appearing in ads supporting it. He came around on the issue earlier than Clinton and he worked hard on it, and that’s to his credit. Now, I’m glad she’s changed her position, and that makes me much more favorable to her (if she hadn’t changed her position, I wouldn’t have been willing to consider voting for her in a primary in 2016). But, one problem with Clinton is that she doesn’t have many actual liberal accomplishments to her name. Another problem is that, despite a public reputation for being a “left-winger,” she generally only stakes out the middle ground positions. It’s not a great situation when a politician is seen by most voters as being extremely liberal, but in fact they’re only willing to embrace liberal positions when they have majority support in the electorate. Her position on gay marriage is just more evidence that she’s a moderate (she basically staked out the popular position at every moment in time), and I’m not thrilled about moderates.

    Second, obviously I will vote for her in the general election if she wins the primary. But, I don’t think anyone is well served by just assuming she’ll win the primary. She almost certainly will, but she actually would be well served by having a decent primary challenge to help her develop a strong, national campaign.

    Third, it’s certainly a fair line of questioning, and I’m glad to see a Reporter pushing her on her thinking. Even though I agree that it isn’t going to change whether I vote for her, it’s interesting to hear politicians explain their positions and their reasons for changing their opinions. In the end, I suspect she shifted positions publicly years after she had shifted positions privately (in her heart/mind), but I also accept that as part of politics. That was obviously the case with Obama and many other Democrats. But, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be pressed on it. One reason Obama came around publicly was probably that everyone was talking about how he probably wasn’t being honest about what he really believed.

Comments are closed.