Last week, President Bill Clinton accepted GLAAD’s ‘Advocate for Change’ Award in Los Angeles last night but not everyone was buying Clinton’s latest change of heart over gay marriage. GLADD notably left out of the award that Clinton not only signed but helped push through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This was not in 1896 but in 1996. Clinton was heckled by some in the crowd as he accepted the award as a leader on gay rights, yelling “you signed it” when he referred to DOMA as if it was some alien or GOP legislation. What is truly annoying is Clinton’s “some of my best friends are now gay” rationalization.
Clinton called on the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA which he made law without acknowledging his key role. GLADD attempted to help him in this piece of historical revisionism not only with the award but the omission of his inglorious role. At the time of DOMA many people denounced Clinton and the Congress for codifying what was seen as an act of open discrimination.
Clinton quickly adopted the mantra of many Democratic and Republican leaders who suddenly became aware of gay rights or had a personal change of heart just as polls showed that they could now support it.
I have become increasingly irritated by politicians who have cloaked themselves in principle in supporting gay marriage after years of opposition . . . after polls showed a majority of voters supporting it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) waited until after an election when this issue was raised to change her position. She was showered with praise by those who failed to ask why she opposed gay rights for years on the issue.
It is particularly maddening to see leaders who explain that they just didn’t understand the issue until one of their kids revealed that they were gay. That is the case with Sen. Rob Portman (R. Ohio) who changed his position when his son revealed he is gay. Dick Cheney changed his public position on gay rights generally when his daughter came out. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if civil rights were recognized even without having a personal stake or interest in the matter? It is hardly redeeming to say that “I really didn’t think of the denial of basic rights to other people until my son was included in the disenfranchised group.”
As for Clinton, he says that he really did not understand why DOMA was such a big deal or a bad idea until his daughter Chelsea explained it to him:
“She has had a profound impact in many ways on the way I see the world. It’s sort of humbling when you get to be my age when your child knows more than you do about everything….Chelsea and her gay friends and her wonderful husband have modeled to me how we should all treat each other regardless of our sexual orientation or any other artificial difference that divides us. Many of them come and join us every Thanksgiving for a meal. I have grown very attached to them. And over the years, I was forced to confront the fact that people who oppose equal rights for gays in the marriage sphere are basically acting out of concerns for their own identity, not out of respect for anyone else.”
This is one of the classic methods of politicians to avoid personal accountability in their prior actions. By citing to a father’s love for a child, the politician raises positive images to counter the image of their prior role of leading the mob against an insular minority. Did Chelsea really have to explain this to Clinton? In 1996, thousands of people were in Washington asking to explain it to him. He did not want to hear it because it was politically popular to be against the gays and lesbians on the issue. You should not have to “have grown very attached to them” to recognize equal rights. That sounds a lot like “some of my best friends are now gay.” The test of true principle … supporting rights that do not directly benefit or personally appeal to you. That is one test Clinton never tried to pass as president.
I have to agree with the naysayers at GLADD. I think the omission of this role by the organization in its award is hypocritical and wrong. I also do not believe Clinton deserves any award or acclaim for finally and belatedly doing the right thing — particularly after leading the effort to deny this right to millions.
What do you think?
Source: Raw Story
Darren,
That would not be a one-person job. At least battalion strength needed. Even then, it would be Whack-A-Mole.
How about nominating me for the Occam’s Razor Bearer. My sole job would be to seek out waste, BS and politics in gov’t and exorcise the demons of stupidity. I work cheap and provide a vital human service with no hidden agendas.
Tony,
If you get the job, I’d like a new cabinet position job: Prime Minister of Sinister Sarcasm and Alliterative Allusion.
All posts lie tricksters fly the way their bosses tell them to there is a video on YouTube named the Clinton chronicles im using sons kindle so can’t link it but it’s a must see
Nick: No delusions of grandeur; if it were something I could take I would take it. Anonymity would not be a condition, I would trade my anonymity for the power of the Presidency. Not for nothing, and not just to satisfy your infantile pouting, but for the power of the Presidency, sure.
I do not expect to ever be President; I am an atheist and wouldn’t lie about that. Open atheists have achieved political office, but I doubt the country is ready for an atheist president, or will be in my lifetime. In polls we are less trusted than convicted felons.
That said, the President has undeniable power. You do not have to be a sociopath to want the power to change the world for the better, you have to be a sociopath to not give a crap if the world can be changed for the better.
Sometimes I learn from the comments here. I have learned that I had all these scattered reasons not to like Hilary. The various comments here bring them together for me. She and Bill need to enjoy their separate lives and leave the rest of us alone. I dont have a candidate for 2016. Biden is too old. I want someone fresh from the midwest or west. Some new women or guy out of the blue like Obama is fine. The RepubliCons should choose Mitt again.
JOnathan,
People evolve. That is the nature of social change. I disagree with you on this. Clinton clearly evolved in his position on homosexuality and equal rights since his earlier stated position in the 1990s. Also, at that time, he was President of the United STates, wh ich carries with it certain political complexities. I believe you are wrong. He indeed deserved the honor and my hat is off to him for publicly stating his change in positions and explaining it to the masses. Would you prefer that he retained his earlier narrow-minded approach to the gay community, or would you prefer that he comes forward 20 years later to say in so many words, “I have learned that my earlier position is no longer viable and I know that everyone deserves to be treated with respect in our society”? Come on JOnathan. You know better.
“JOnathan,
People evolve. That is the nature of social change”
Paul Greenberg where I disagree with you is that many people in politics are secretly gay and that is well known by other politicians. The secret is kept out of courtesy and those gay politicians are allowed to be as homophobic as they need to be to get elected. I bet the Clintons have had gay friends since college, so their position on homosexuality was one of political expedience and “evolved” only in the sense that is is now expedient to to be openly pro-gay. Clinton as President showed much cowardice in the service of political expediency. I voted for him twice, but never liked the man.
But, as Mike said and I agree, “Only sociopaths want to be president.”
Delusions of grandeur. I don’t think you can run for president anonymously.
Mike: I suppose I would take the Presidency in a New York minute. Even if I expected it would cost me my life. Power is power. I could make more positive difference in people’s lives as President in one year than I could make in another 50 years of life. Begin by pardoning every non-violent drug offender, re-instating with back pay and benefits any soldier that lost their job to DADT and still wants to be in the military. End the wars. Close Guantanamo. Open the books on the secrecy. Hire a real attorney general.
I might get assassinated, but hey, nobody lives forever…
“Mike: I suppose I would take the Presidency in a New York minute”
Tony,
I’d vote for you, but knowing your dedication to what you think is right they probably would kill you. Still, I would never take the job (like I’d ever be offered it 🙂 ) because I’ve paid my dues and I like to have fun in my life, rather than be tied to a 24/7 job.
Tony,
No, I wasn’t thinking of you in reference to Rand Paul but I was thinking of all the twisting and turning that will commence as others attempt to rewrite his short history full of entertaining flip-flops.
I’m a big supporter of leaving the space blank if one is dissatisfied with the choices. I’ve done it myself many times over the years. The party statisticians on all sides pay particular attention to those numbers which are relatively easy to pull out of the returns so it is an effective way of sending a message. I know of several candidates who have been denied a second chance to run/rerun by their party based on those numbers.
Bill also told the Haitians after the disaster there that he “felt their pain’ when he discovered he destroyed their local rice production with ‘free trade’ deals that flooded their market with cheap rice from Arkansas.
Not having a local agriculture base made the recovery much more difficult for the whole population in Haiti.
I also blame Bill directly for this economic crisis…..he had the veto pen for the Securities ‘Modernization Act’ and the repeal of Glass/Steigal etc. Setting the stage for massive fraud and economic catastrophe.
Why do these politicians always ‘feel the pain’ when they are out of power?
nick spinelli 1, April 22, 2013 at 10:13 am
It’s heartening to see folks are now realizing the Clintons have no soul, just a finger in the political winds.
*****
There has been plenty of criticism of Bill Clinton on this blog over the years. It isn’t anything new.
Swarthmore: “To some degree” should not include a complete abdication of responsibility or opportunity to do the most good.
Blouise: I would not support or vote for Rand Paul, if that is what you are thinking. I am not a fan of the family, I believed Ron Paul had a true and steadfast commitment to the Constitution and rule of law, regardless of any of his other personal failings. I do not believe that is true of Rand Paul.
I would not support or vote for Hillary, either. If she is the Democratic candidate, I will vote, but I will leave that choice blank.
leej, cannabisnip!
Nick, may need to package that (:
I hate the movie, Groundhog Day, but it keeps playing here.
At ease, private.
“some of my best friends are now gay”
And what were they before? Not gay? He has new friends?
————–
R Shea,
” From DOMA to his “welfare reform” to his role in eviscerating financial regulation…”
Add to that NAFTA and GATT
————-
” sometimes it takes a personal relationship with an issue before you take a stance.” – LeeJ.
yes.
And what Tony C. said.
That would be most disappointing.
And you’d be wrong, nick.
My “problem” with you has always been substantive from day one when you freaked out over being told that someone’s not being “mother of the year” was irrelevant to her rights being abused by a cop in a roadside search of dubious legal merit and went on an ad hominem rampage, a mode of operation you subsequently went on to demonstrate time and again that you seem to prefer over substantive argument. Your responses may be rooted in testosterone, but my criticism has always been of both your form – which is often poor – and substance – which often lacks logic, suitable evidence and/or substance – and firmly rooted in reason, sound logic and argumentation practice.
Points of singular agreement are not signs of general accord nor is correlation always causation.
Just to be clear.