
We have been discussing the disconnect between the parties and the voters this year. The voters have made clear that they (1) detest the ruling elite and (2) want real change. The two parties controlling our duopoly have thus far responded with the Democrats virtually pre-nominating Hillary Clinton (with Joe Biden as a contender and the Republican leaders pushing for Jeb Bush. The process of reinvention has begun. Clinton has been a fascinating case study. Recently, she came out and said that her Iraq War vote was a “mistake” but that she has learned the truth over the years (despite refusing to listen to many who opposed the war at the time). Now, she is claiming the same gradual realization that gays and lesbians deserve equal rights in marriage. Usually in Washington media, politicians are allowed to make a spin, refuse to answer a question, that the media simply meekly fades away. As shown in the video below, however, this time Clinton was facing NPR icon Terry Gross who persisted in trying to unravel what she viewed as spin. While unfailingly polite, Gross kept returning to question of why Clinton for so many years did not support same-sex marriage. Eventually, Hillary expressed discomfort if not anger at the continued questioning. Putting aside the merits, most of us were shocked for another reason. There was a reporter who actually refused to let a politician duck and spin in an interview. It was like seeing a Phoenix rise in Washington journalism.
In January 2000 Clinton strongly opposed same-sex marriage but years later would modify her position to support civil unions. However, she remained steadfastly opposed to equality in marriage, as she made clear in her 2007 convention speech. This was strikingly (and some would say calculatingly) different from Obama who in 1996 said “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” (though he then abandoned that commitment as president until his second term).
In Washington, the media has never been so locked into respective political camps with reporters now consistently supporting either liberal or conservative lines. I have tremendous respect for NPR and consider it one of our premier media outfits. It is not a lock for politicians though it is viewed as a favorable forum by the Clinton camp, particularly an iconic liberal and feminist like Gross. Even with more neutral interviewers, politicians have become accustomed to simply refusing to answer questions with spin and the most you will get is a feeble followup before “moving on.” Thus, Clinton has been successful in fending out questions of her description of Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Some reporters have raised whether a male politician would be skewered for such a comment, particularly when Bill Clinton admitted later than he lied on not having a relationship with “that woman.” However, Hillary simply said that it was past history and that we all needed to move on and the media complied. (For my part, I view the Lewinsky comment are a fair area for a pass. The fact is that Clinton was not just a politicians but the man’s wife. I think you get a pass in such a circumstance.). The mantra of only “looking forward” becomes more problematic when you are speaking of votes to commit the country to war or opposition to equality of marriage.
The confrontation was triggered when Gross asked, as an almost intellectual exercise, how politicians like Clinton make the political calculation not to support things like equal rights. Clinton (as with the Iraq War) portrayed her position as something that was almost pre-historic ancient history and had to go into the way back machine to describe what is was like. She suggested that virtually no one support it (her same spin on the Iraq War and everyone else was wrong too). That did not sit well with Gross who kept pointing out that at the time many American supported same-sex marriage and tried hard to get people like Clinton to listen but politicians like her were unwilling to risk the political backlash. Clinton dismisses those voices as a few early risers but portray this as a different time — apparently closer to the landing of Plymouth than the Stonewell riots. In the end, Hillary accuses Gross of “being very persistent” and “playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”
Here are the eleven attempts to get Hillary to admit that she simply followed the politically expedient course over principle on the issue:
NPR’s TERRY GROSS: “So what’s it like when you’re in office and you have to do all these political calculations to not be able to support something like gay marriage, that you actually believe in? Obviously you feel very committed to human rights and you obviously put gay rights as part of human rights, but in doing the calculus you decided you couldn’t support it. Correct me if I’m reading it wrong.”
HILLARY CLINTON: “I think you’re reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said – just as the president has said – just because you’re a politician doesn’t mean you’re not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you’re not 100 percent set, thank goodness, you’re constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So for me, marriage has always been a matter left to the states and in many of the conversations I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state. In fact, that is what is working and I think that being in the position that I was in the Senate, fighting employment discrimination which we still have some ways to go, was appropriate at that time.
As secretary of state, I was out of domestic politics and I was certainly doing all I could on the international scene to raise the importance of the human rights of the LGBT community. And then leaving that position, I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance. One of my big problems right now is 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 about new information and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. I think it’s good if people continue to change.”
. . .
GROSS: “So you mention that you believe in state by state for gay marriage. But it’s a Supreme Court too. The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That part is now struck down. And 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?”CLINTON: “Of course. And you know, again, let’s… we are living at a time when this extraordinary change is occurring and I’m proud of our country, I’m proud of the people who have been on the front lines of advocacy, but in 1993, that was not the case. And there was a very concerted effort in the Congress to make it even more difficult and greater discrimination and what DOMA did is at least allow the states to act. It wasn’t going to yet be recognized by the federal government but at the state level there was the opportunity. And my husband was the first to say, that you know, the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated by the passage of DOMA, thankfully, were no longer so preeminent and we could keep moving forward and that’s what we’re doing.”
. . .
GROSS: “So, just to clarify, just one more question on this, would you say your view evolved since the ’90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view?”
. . .
CLINTON: “I think I’m an American, I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of.”
. . .
GROSS: “I understand but a lot of people believed in it already back in the ’90s. They supported gay marriage.”CLINTON: “To be fair Terry, not that many. Were there activists who were ahead of their time, well that was true in every human rights and civil rights movement, but the vast majority of Americans were just waking up to this issue and beginning to think about it, and grasp it for the first time, and think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did, or their son, or their daughter. It has been an extraordinarily fast, by historic terms social, political, and legal transformation and we ought to celebrate that instead of plowing old ground when in fact a lot of people, the vast majority of people, have been moving forward. Maybe slowly, maybe tentatively, maybe not as quickly and extensively as many would have hoped but nevertheless, we are at a point now where equality, including marriage equality, in our country is solidly established although there will be places, Texas just to name one, where that is still going to be an ongoing struggle.”
. . .
GROSS: “I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer my question about whether you evolved or it was the American public that changed –”
CLINTON: “Because I said I’m an American so of course we all evolved and I think that’s a fair conclusion –”
. . .
GROSS: “So you’re saying your opinion on gay marriage changed.”
CLINTON: “You know, somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody is always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who join later, in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change, are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across the country if nobody changed their mind and thank goodness so many of us have.”
. . .
GROSS: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”
CLINTON: You know I really, I have to say, I think you’re being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”
. . .
GROSS: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand –”
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think 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 were making.”. . .
GROSS: “You know I’m just saying, I’m sorry – I just want to clarify what I was saying – no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but, you know believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn’t ready yet and you couldn’t say it. That’s what I was thinking.”
CLINTON: “No. That is not true.”GROSS: “OK.”
CLINTON: “I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don’t think you did either. This was an incredible new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay right movement began to talk about and slowly, but surely, convinced others about the rightness of that position. When I was ready to say what I said, I said it.”
GROSS: “OK, thank you for clarifying that.”
When pushed Clinton seems to trip over the spin. For example, she at the end disagrees when Gross that “you now believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn’t ready yet.” Clinton clearly indicates that she did not believe in same-sex marriage. However, Gross made that comment because she just referred to how some people (presumably her) were “privately accepting that there needs to be change” and should not be viewed as “any less committed.” As with Iraq, Clinton seems to be striving to get points for eventually supporting something when it became popular to do so. While Gross noted that “a lot of people believed in it already back in the ’90s. They supported gay marriage,” Clinton dismissed the notion and said “To be fair Terry, not that many.” That will come as a surprise to many in this country. What is true is that there were “not that many” politicians in Congress who were willing to stand for equal rights in marriage. Clinton was not and, with the Iraq War, waited for the polls to change.
It was a rare moment in journalism today. Gross is already being criticized by some media members who support Clinton. They are appalled by her persistence on the question and Jonathan Capehart insisted he has covered her for years and never saw the slightest “political calculation in her opposition to same-sex marriage.” Carhart simply states that her positions has been “pretty much where the country was then.” However, that is not viewed as a political calculation. He just insists that “her march to ‘yes’ was maddeningly slow” but that there was “not a whiff” of politics in her position.
Because of Gross’s “persistence,” we have the most detailed answer from Clinton yet on the issue. Clinton does admit that she did not support equality in marriage personally, but insisted that she showed great integrity in changing her mind. However, what leaves people like Gross and other civil libertarians suspicious is that these epiphanies for Clinton always seem to occur when the polls change. When the polls shifted in favor of civil unions, Clinton realized that she supported civil unions but was still steadfastly opposed to equal marriage rights. Then the polls shifted in favor of equal marriage and Clinton realized that she now supported the concept. It is not the change but the timing that leaves so many suspicious.
With the recent pivot on the Iraq War using the same spin (this was ancient history and she had to be educated over the years), it will be interesting if the New Hillary will be the type of change that citizens will accept. It will be the ultimate test for the standard view of politicians that voters have the memory of golden retriever puppies. For my part (despite the attacks on Gross from the Clinton camp), I would love to see other journalists show the same “persistence,” which used to be viewed as a positive thing in a reporter. We just might be able to get some answers from all of our leaders instead of the same spin written by political handlers. Very few reporters in Washington are willing to alienate a powerful politician or her supporters with such persistent questioning but it is a refreshing change seen on Fresh Air with Terry Gross.
Jill. The Koch Bros and Sherman Adelson have far more money that any democrat on the list of billionaires with the exception of Warren Buffett.
Another comment missing. If someone can get it please, thank you!
Actually, wages have fallen. But the real point is, elite members of the legacy parties do not care about ordinary people. It is time for ordinary people to use the power we do have and support social/environmental justice. We can do this.
SMM,
Nothing is incorrectly written about the Koch brothers. However, the article refuses to address the billionaires who support elite Democrats. That is disingenuous. It’s its own propaganda. That article tries to make people think that elite Republicans are supported by evil billionaires while elite Democrats are supported by saintly $5.00 donations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Much like the Gross interview, it is designed to obfuscate basic truth from Democratic party members.
“We now have great income inequality than under Bush! “Jill That is true as those with invested income have become much much richer as the stock market has more that doubled under Obama while wages remain stagnant.
Jim22,
I do not believe all rich people are bad. There is no category of people that one can say are all bad or all good. What we can say is that currently, in our nation, a relative handful of people are running things. They are running things for their own benefit and in that process they are destroying this earth and most of the life on it. We need to be clear about these people’s actions. Unless we agree with those actions we need to speak up and stop supporting those actions. We need to work for social and environmental justice.
I know that many people on the left and the right believe that Obama hates rich people. That is a strange claim given that Obama is himself rich, the people in his cabinet are rich and he calls Jamie Dimon one of his savvy businessmen friends. His fiscal and social policies have benefited the rich. We now have great income inequality than under Bush!
Hate speech would be saying there is a class war and we should 1: if rich, destroy the poor or 2. if poor, destroy the rich. Naming the truth is not hate speech. It is a necessary first step in uniting with all people of good will to restore the environment, the Constitution, the rule of law and social justice.
I say you have fallen to the propaganda since class warfare is all that President Obama preaches, JIm 22 Huh? Obama did not even prosecute the rich bankers.
SMM, Your argument about money is a joke right? The Dems have more money than they no what to do with. In the last election what group bragged about spending $1billion on the presidency?
Jill – “When do we the people stop accepting this kind of thing in our “leaders”? We as citizens should not accept this. We will keep getting representatives of the 1%, no matter what color, gender, sexual orientation, hell-the 1% could get people to elect an atheist Muslim, they are so good at propagandizing us!!!”
I can agree with most of your thought that is why I didn’t vote for either choice last election. what I do disagree with is you broad notion against what you call 1%er’s which I assume you use to label the rich. By doing this you are yourself falling for the propagandists. How do you know ALL rich are bad? To me, it is a form of racist statement. Call it class racism. I say you have fallen to the propaganda since class warfare is all that President Obama preaches. How is the President demonizing the rich any different than what Hitler did? the first thing a controlling govt. does is divide it’s citizens. What’s next? Two minute hate speech?
Why don’t you all join me in voting for that All-American candidate, citizen of CA, ambassador of goodwill, friend to children and adults alike, Mickey Mouse.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/26-3 “Finally, after the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision in 2010, billionaires began creating their own political mechanisms, separate from the political parties. They started providing big money directly to political candidates of their choice, and creating their own media campaigns to sway public opinion toward their own views.
So far in the 2014 election cycle, “Americans for Prosperity,” the Koch brother’s political front group, has aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV commercials, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups.
“Americans for Prosperity” has also been outspending top Democratic super PACs in nearly all of the Senate races Republicans are targeting this year. In seven of the nine races the difference in total spending is at least two-to-one and Democratic super PACs have had virtually no air presence in five of the nine states.
The Kochs have spawned several imitators. Through the end of February, four of the top five contributors to 2014 super-PACs are now giving money to political operations they themselves created, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”
SMM,
No I don’t agree with JT about Citizens United, just as I don’t agree with him about how great NPR is, but you do think NPR is fabulous just like JT! I don’t agree with Glenn Greenwald about it and I don’t agree with Mike Appleton about it. However, it is current reality. That is why it’s a good idea to work to overturn that ruling. It’s also important to deal with present reality by refusing to support 1 percenter minions. That doesn’t cost money.
Ordinary people do not have financial power but we still have power. We aren’t using it to further the good of the planet or social justice. We need to start doing so.
SMM,
I saw that as well and consider it important information. Ordinary people aren’t going to compete by using money to buy our own politician. We have to use our hearts and minds. That means stop supporting these already purchased politicians with our words, deeds or votes. We can do this! It doesn’t cost money to do these things.
Jill, You Know that JT supported the Citizens United ruling which is making things much much worse. Do you agree?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/one-percent-wealthy-dominate-2012-elections-congress “Here’s a statistic that should jolt you awake like black coffee with three shots of espresso dropped in: In the 2012 election cycle, 28 percent of all disclosed donations—that’s $1.68 billion—came from just 31,385 people. Think of them as the 1 percenters of the 1 percent, the elite of the elite, the wealthiest of the wealthy.
That’s the blockbuster finding in an eye-popping new report by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan transparency advocate. The report’s author, Lee Drutman, calls the 1 percent of the 1 percent “an elite class that increasingly serves as the gatekeepers of public office in the United States.” This rarefied club of donors, Drutman found, worked in high-ranking corporate positions (often in finance or law). They’re clustered in New York City and Washington, DC. Most are men. You might’ve heard of some of them: casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Texas waste tycoon Harold Simmons, Hollywood executive Jeffrey Katzenberg. “
SMM,
This goes back to one of JT’s points that ordinary people do not really want any of the 1% minions, no matter the party. So, why are there people supporting 1 percenter minions?
No one can deny that Clinton is treated in a blatantly sexist manner by the press. It is disgusting. While that sexism is wrong it does not mean that Clinton should be supported. It means that the sexism against her should be condemned. I would like to strongly condemn that sexism. There is no way that I would or should vote for her. She is a 1 percenter minion.
I have a post missing. If anyone will retrieve it, I’d be grateful.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/why-isnt-chris-christie-d_b_5499087.html “Does anyone really think even a single potential vote for a would-be election nearly 900 days from now was won or lost over Clinton’s “broke” comment or her “testy” exchange with Gross. I certainly don’t.
But once again with Clinton and the press last week, there seemed to be something oddly personal about how journalists searched out a bad-news narratives for her. Recall that in 2008, during the Democratic primary season, The Washington Post’s Milbank noted, “The press will savage [Clinton] no matter what.”
That same one-way hostility has been apparent recently. National Journal used the book tour to push the idea last week that Clinton’s popularly was slipping to such dangerous new depths that a possible White House run might be called off. “As things get even worse, Clinton may ask herself if another run is really worth it,” the Journal asked. Its bad-news proof? A new Gallup poll showed that Hillary’s favorable rating had slipped to 54 percent.
According to National Journal, that was very bad news. Missing from the article? The fact that possible Republican contenders such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie currently have underwater favorable ratings that hover around 33 percent, or 21 points lower than Clinton. But National Journal left that part out. National Journal also didn’t quote a single Democrat in its article about Clinton’s supposedly perilous favorable rating. But it did quote a Republican National Committee spokesman, which kind of gave away the game.”
Glen,
That queen could as easily be Jeb Bush. The truth is, voters are the people who keep allowing bad candidates to be nominated and elected. We can stop allowing this. It would take courage, it requires the willingness to take risks, but it can be done.
There’s a lot of propaganda to see through but we can do that if we allow the truth in. As I said above, Republicans and Democrats alike should stop accepting such terrible candidates.
nick, If she were really the queen, Obama would not have defeated her.
Hillary might want to study this video of Elizabeth Taylor playing Queen Cleopatra in 1963. This is a preview of the inauguration ceremonies.
Glen – in her greatest fantasy, Hillary never looked as good as Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra. Saw that film opening night in glorious Cinemascope and she was never lovelier.