NPR hits Hillary hard over gay marriage, Hillary gets ticked

Wow, from NPR this is quite amazing.

I love NPR, don’t get me wrong.  But damn, “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross hit Hillary Clinton hard on the degree to which she, and the Democratic party, were playing politics with their views on gay marriage.

Look, I was a Hillary supporter before I switched my allegiance to Obama in late 2007 (before it was cool).  And while it was a hard-fought primary, and we were quite tough on Hillary, I still think she would make a strong and effective president. But this interview did not go well. Terry Gross hits her hard, and Hillary gets defensive.  And it didn’t strike me as a very effective “I’m a strong leader with strong views” kind of defensive.  It sounded somewhat wishy-washy.  And I’m not entirely sure why.

The real fireworks start around 5 to 6 minutes into the interview.

This interview is flying around on social media, it’s worth a listen.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

216 Responses to “NPR hits Hillary hard over gay marriage, Hillary gets ticked”

  1. florinefrancis says:

    She certainly will be a stronger candidate this time around, having been humbled back in 2008 and done the hard work necessary to be a viable candidate. She will be a damned sight better than anything the RNC will produce when it comes to LGBT or women’s rights are concerned.

  2. florinefrancis says:

    Absolutely! To say this was “wishy-washy” also is disingenuous.

  3. florinefrancis says:

    I couldn’t agree more!

  4. LumberJock says:

    NewsAmerica, ABC, CNN

  5. Strepsi says:

    The U.S. has a democracy defecit. TWO parties? For a country your size? Ridiculous. The FCC monitors Mastercard, Visa and Amex for colluding in the market, but no one covers the monopoly of Dems and Republicans in the democratic marketplace. Here we have Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, Bloc Quebecois and Green parties. You should have Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Green, and probably Union party and Libertarian… at least.

    I love Elizabeth Warren! My dream Dem tickets

    Elizabeth Warren / Brian Sims
    Brian Sims / Wendy Davis


  6. SheenaJeetyib says:

    like Jacqueline implied I’m
    taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month on the computer . see
    post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  7. Silver_Witch says:

    Thank you JDH for pushing me to “listen” regarding the Ms. Clinton’s stance and action on behalf of Transgender people – I had not really heard it in the tapes – but went digging for the transcript – which I find often better in many ways…it certainly takes the snark out of her tone.

    I thank you because – I can see I judged to harshly. Not saying I will support Ms. Clinton, because frankly I am not sure I believe she will stand up for Womens Rights (mostly choice issues)….that said I will have to rethink my stance.

    I wanted to share – for those who won’t go listen/read:

    GROSS: You added gender identity to the State Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity policy, and you made it easier for Americans to change their sex on their passport. Did you have to sneak that in without a lot of attention?

    I can – I mean, I didn’t know you’d done that. But I have a feeling, if a lot of people had known you’d done that, you would’ve gotten a lot of pushback for that. I mean, ’cause there’s still a lot of people in our country who oppose gay rights and would probably even more so oppose, like, any recognition of the transgender community. So did you do that on (laughing) the quiet?

    CLINTON: Well, I don’t know how quiet it was. Even before I did that, I spoke to the LGBT employees at the State Department. I was aware of their hopes for some changes that might make it easier for them to be the professionals that they had signed up to be. And I don’t think it was any big secret. I think it was part of the overall efforts to try to treat people with dignity and equality.

    And certainly the Obama administration made some of its own moves at the same time with respect to the larger federal employee pool. And when I had responsibility for the well-being of the 70,000 or so employees around the world who worked for the State Department and USAID, I had an opportunity, through executive action, to recognize that there were barriers and vestiges of discrimination that had no place in a moderate American workplace and so I acted.

  8. JDH says:

    Crickets? I check my email once a day. :P

    If you listen to the interview, they discuss it at decent length. Terry asks her about wading into the tough politics of trans rights internationally, and Hillary answers that it’s a matter of conviction and that she’s not going to overlook trans people just because it’s a tough battle. It’s worth listening to.

  9. Silver_Witch says:

    If there were no Fox what would the loonies watch?

  10. doug105 says:

    A lot of the videos you can find searching for teaparty racist on youtube were first put up by them, in large groups it just shows through and they didn’t even think about how it looks.

  11. doug105 says:

    If people really wanted the truth there would be no FOX.

  12. Silver_Witch says:

    Welcome Magster to the evolution. I was lucky, I think, in school I knew a few gay people and was not “defined” about who I could/would love (male, female – small space alien) so I knew right away that it was not fair that people could not hold hands if they were in love – let alone marry – if their genders were not opposite OR if their skin color did not match.
    I am so happy to see so many realizing that love is love, regardless of the size, shape or color of it. And as I always say “Better Late Then Never”.

  13. LumberJock says:

    Sil –
    We agree that HRC is a poor choice by the party as our Presidential candidate, but for different reasons. She’s not an executive. I know she flew around; visited 112 countries, and all that. But she doesn’t delegate. She is a great legislator and more than adequate negotiator, but I would never let her draw the line in the sand. Once someone stepped over it, she would begin negotiations on returning. The line in the sand is the result of, not the reason for, negotiation.
    What another thinks or believes is always sublimated to organizational goals and needs.

  14. Silver_Witch says:

    I notice we have crickets from JDH and her/his statement that Hillary is on the “forefront” of trans issues. I agree with you 100% – I am tired of politicians and people in general who can just state what they really believe. Either way – just say it.

  15. Bill_Perdue says:

    Change can be ratified by the courts but the initiative comes from mass action, political pressure and often from foreign pressure.

    That was the case with Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, which was based on the work of the NAACP and militancy in black community combined with Soviet pressure about American racism, Roe v. Wade – 410 U.S. 113, based on the rise of the women’s movement, and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 and United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12, both of which were based solely on the growth and militancy of the LGBT communities and movements.

    Marriage equality had nothing to do with rebranded and not yet rebranded bigots. The LGBT communities won that battle.

    I’m sorry that you’re on good terms with pro-war, union busting, anti-environmental politicians. That’s not a good sign.

  16. magster says:

    As I reflect in hindsight, I think the “evolution” for me came very quickly from the brave civil disobedience of the SF mayor to conduct marriage ceremonies, and seeing the love. My apologies for not being for gay marriage before it was cool (and I was never AGAINST it, just worried about the politics of it and so forth (which is shameful in hindsight)). I suspect that I’m part of the drastic and fast moving acceptance of gay marriage that swept up Hillary, Obama, and millions of other people. I’m pretty embarrassed, but at least I’m here on this issue now.

  17. jamesnimmo says:

    When any politician’s lips are moving he/she is lying. Her hubby was anti-gay, he signed TWO anti-gay bills, DOMA and DADT, she had no influence on him???? Listen carefully: she praises everyone else but does NOT say she once was anti-marriage equality. Always looking forward, never apologizing for the past. Cynical and self-serving. Selfie is more than a photo!

  18. SkippyFlipjack says:

    When a user doesn’t get the expected result when interacting with a website it’s not necessarily true that they “made an error”. Lots can happen between keyboard and server that’s outside the user’s control.

  19. JDH says:

    That’s just patently false. Clearly the courts do make a difference, and I’m sure I don’t need to start rattling off cases here. Legislators make a difference, and you know they do. Gay people are feeling tangible differences in our lives because of it, and you’re here saying it doesn’t happen and the parties are all the same. Sorry, but my marriage license and joint tax return say you’re totally wrong.

    The politicians I know personally are people of conviction and character working within the limits of the system. You must not know or work with anyone in government; that would explain that giant, paranoid steaming pile of conspiratorial illuminati crap I just read.

  20. Terry Brady says:

    I just found Terry just a bit pushy….. well a lot pushy – for no discernible reason. A difference of opinion.

  21. Terry Brady says:

    The dog gave it to the cat to eat.

  22. Bill_Perdue says:

    Real change can’t come from Democrats or from liberals. Democrats and Republicans in the WH, the courts and the Congress are political prostitutes who service the rich. There are no exceptions to that and it includes all the figures you mention. Even putative socialists like Sanders fall short because he caucuses with Democrats.

    Liberals and conservatives alike are part and parcel of the pro-capitalist wars of aggression, anti-worker union busting, homophobia and racism that characterizes both parties. Their differences between liberals and conservatives are cosmetic and boil down squabbles over who gets the most bribes from the rich.

    Real change has always come from mass action by small farmers and city workers, women, people of color and ourselves. for the last hundred years or so it’s been class based. It comes from workers, not middle class liberals and conservatives.

  23. SirWilhelm says:

    Just a longer, more involved version of “I was against it, before I was for it”. Her words, if she wasn’t trying so hard to parse what she means, because she’s trying to have it both ways, to be uncontroversial, to get, and keep, as many voters as possible, when she runs.

  24. Silver_Witch says:

    Terry – I think it was your dogs fault – he ate your post – unless you don’t have a dog…than maybe the cat, a small mouse – a very large Cockroach?

  25. JDH says:

    The problem is that if a Third Way Dem (a conservative that doesn’t hate gays) is elected, it swings the door wide open for a libertarian-leaning Republican to capitalize on America’s surging populism. Of course, that would effectively kill off populism for 50 more years.

    Obama was supposed to be that populist liberal, and I remember my stomach sinking with every cabinet appointment and staffer that was named. We need more Warrens, Reiches, Krugmans, Frankens, Graysons, etc to step up and start leading before the moment passes.

  26. Silver_Witch says:

    I agree with a great deal of your post save I think Terry was trying to get Hillary to say whether she had evolved into understanding and accepting Gay rights/marriage/equality. Rather that saying “I don’t really – but am saying I do”.
    Frankly, as stated below, if Hillary Clinton had said – “you know it is true I never thought of gay issues or understood the need for equality for gay people back then – I get it now though and am beside you all the way” I would have had a lot more respect for her.
    However, she was doing the political person thing – dodge the issue; don’t say anything straight out; always have the out of denyability. It was like listening to any politician on Jon Stewart who can not or will not answer the question at hand …just a bunch of double speak.
    As a side note did you Terry Gross is 63 – who knew.

  27. Naja pallida says:

    She won’t change my mind unless she stands up and says flat out: ‘equal rights’ means equal, for everyone. No equivocation. No politician double speak. Either you believe in equal rights or you don’t. There isn’t any middle ground. I don’t care so much about her past positions if she can’t come to that in the present.

  28. Silver_Witch says:

    JDH – how is Hillary leading on the “new frontier of trans issues”. Would love to have my mind changed about her as a candidate for President and that might just do it.

  29. Houndentenor says:

    I understand that they weren’t Bill’s ideas, but he signed them so there’s no actual difference. He did brag in radio ads in 1996 about signing DOMA, so he’s an asshole for that. That hardly sounds like something he did begrudgingly or under duress. (And yes, I voted for him anyway. Dole wouldn’t even take a $1000 check that his campaign solicited from LCR. That was all a publicity stunt anyway to make sure everyone knew how anti-gay he was.)

    As for Iraq. Bill was for the first Gulf War when many Democrats were not. That proved to be a real help for him in 1996 when the war had gone quickly and well and been popular with the public. Hillary thought the same would happen so she backed it. It was a political calculation and one the country is still paying for (see today’s headlines) 12 years later. I do agree about 2004. Kerry was a TERRIBLE candidate. Even I didn’t like him and I voted for him. And even so he still almost one (and probably did win Ohio…no way of knowing since their corrupt secretary of state destroyed any possibility of a recount…which means he’d have won the electoral college. If only the Democrats had had some balls. Frank Rich tweeted today about the Democrats who were hawkish on Iraq. We shouldn’t forget that. They sold the country out due to fear and cowardice. It’s not even in the past. More Americans are going to wind up dying in this fiasco.

  30. Houndentenor says:

    I’m not that convinced that some of our “supporters” aren’t any more opportunistic than those who routinely vote against us. And I don’t care. I care how the vote is cast, not why. The why has no impact on people’s lives. The vote does. I’m sick of this kind of nonsense politics. I’m more concerned that people do the right thing than being convinced of why they did it. (I’m also not impressed at all by people who are “personally” for gay rights but vote against them anyway. They might as well belong to Westboro Baptist Church for all the good their “feelings” do anyone.)

  31. Houndentenor says:

    He was not in the Senate yet, so he couldn’t have voted for it if he had wanted to. He did make a statement against it. At least get your facts straight. Also, “all the other political hacks did it too” is not much of an excuse.

  32. discus_sucks_ass says:

    forcing a false narrative is still false, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig of an “interviewer”.

  33. Bill_Perdue says:

    Bill Clinton championed DOMA. He shoved it through Congress and signed it. He boasted about signing it on redneck christer radio.

    DOMA belongs to the Democrats and to Clinton. The same is true of NAFTA, deregulation, gutting welfare and the crash of 2007.

  34. Bill_Perdue says:

    Of course they do, but they couldn’t get them passed so the Democrat party ‘elite’ did the dirty deed for them.

  35. Monte Logan says:

    your first paragraph was the key point

  36. Force Crater says:

    Get another Bush elected?

  37. Force Crater says:

    Well, I was certainly prepared to pull the lever for Satan over Mitt so I’m sure Hillary will be my choice over any Republican (Satan still seems more attractive than Jeb Bush.)

  38. Terry Brady says:

    It happens on occasion.

  39. Moderator3 says:

    I bet you’re right.

  40. Terry Brady says:

    I made an error? Impossible! How do I blame my parents for this ? or my keyboard or this new fangled technology. ….wait a second, I know, it’s the fault of the gay mafia trying to turn America into a heathen filled land of immoral liberals. Either that or I forgot to hit send. One of the above is probably accurate.

  41. Badgerite says:

    Thumbs Up!!!!!!!

  42. Badgerite says:

    I think TG sometimes tries too hard to keep her own opinion out of interviews, even though, here and there, you can sense them creeping in, and she goes too hard the other way to try to make up for it. . It’s an independent journalist ethic thing that I think motivates that. To be tough on people, even if you agree with them. Because that is how she views her job. But yeah. It seemed to me she got stuck on that point and tried to imply a political motive as opposed to the motive of true support. And I think that is just wrong. I think that really underestimates the impact that the work of the legal team who guided those recent cases ( Windsor and Prop 8 ) had on the thinking of the country. I know my own thinking ‘evolved’ from “I don’t see the harm here” to ” I don’t see the harm here and by the way you can’t pass these discriminatory laws if you can’t point to a real harm because it violates the Equal Protection Clause.” One attitude is ” I’m so tolerant”. The ‘evolved’ attitude is “This is their right as citizens”. I think the latter is the attitude that is making headway and taking hold in the country right now. And I don’t think politicians who cut their teeth in law schools are immune from that evolution of thought.

  43. Moderator3 says:

    You made an error. You did not have a comment in any of our folders.

  44. JDH says:

    This story is pissing me off. Gay people know that our causes have been politicized from the beginning. We know that most of our supporters weren’t honest about their support in public because it was political suicide.

    Obama straight-up lied about marriage for political purposes, and it’s documented that he did. WE KNOW THIS ALREADY! What difference does it make at this point? Hillary missed the boat on leading on marriage, and she admitted that she was a late-comer to the cause. So what? She changed her mind, realized it was a mistake, and she is actively leading on the new frontier of trans issues.

    Really, Hillary’s answers weren’t dodgy in the least. She answered the gay rights questions the same story-telling, conversational way she answered every other question. I think she did great.

  45. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Similar things happens in both parties. It will never change. The reason people call them teabaggers is they originally called themselves that. They would walk around proudly displaying the tea bags hanging from their hat brims. They were very proud of themselves until someone told them the meaning of tea bagging. I know they now say the TEA is an acronym, but we can still remember it started when they compared themselves to the Boston Tea Party.

    Now we get to why the Republicans prefer to call the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. In graphics, they would emphasize the “rat” part.

    Many of us can’t accept the Republicans Social Goals. You must have realized many people on this site are LGBT. The Republicans want to take away the right to marry that many of already have. They are passing laws making discriminating against LGBT legal. They wish to make reparative therapy the gold standard of dealing with LGBT people. There’s even the yahoo in Oklahoma who wants to stone us to death.

    Personally, I feel that many of the Teapartiers are racist. I base that on what I saw on the news in 2008. They didn’t know they were being filmed.

  46. Badgerite says:

    I actually thought she came off quite well in the interview. Except for that one exchange on marriage equality. She did get defensive and it was unnecessary. But she seems to have grown in the Secretary of State job. I think she would be a good president. Certainly better than anyone else I can see on the horizon. Even Elizabeth Warren. Though I like Warren a lot.

  47. Terry Brady says:

    I attempted to post a comment about an hour ago and it didn’t show up. I’m not sure if it was because the general tone of my post was not in conformity with the general position of most of the comments or I made an error. So I will try again. I have always been a fan of Terry Gross , but thought that she was way out of line in this interview. I was left with the impression that she wasn’t going to be satisfied until Hillary finally said ” No way do I support gay rights and have only agreed to say I’m in favor of gay marriage to get the votes of the lgbt community.”. I was never a big Bill Clinton fan and thought his behavior in the 1990’s regarding DOMA and ” don’t ask, don’t tell” was pathetic. But Hillary was right during this interview, very few people in the 1990’s supported gay marriage. So, she, like most Americans, have evolved on this issue. She didn’t come across as defensive but rather strong and thoughtful. Terry Gross, on the other hand sounded silly and pushy. ( was almost waiting for the disclaimer at the end ” this interview brought to you by the RNC”).

  48. Silver_Witch says:

    I don’t see anyone calling her that word. But I didn’t read every single post. And I am sure that both the President and First Lady have been called far worse things….not on this site – just check out the internet my friend. If someone is going to run for office they better have thick skin (like rinocasuraus thin). I am sure the GOP has far worse things they are going to call Hillary Clinton.

  49. MyrddinWilt says:

    Well as I keep pointing out, DOMA and DADT did not come from the Whitehouse. DOMA was a piece of pure nastiness from Congress that passed 85:15 and 342:67, both veto proof. DADT was the result of Bill Clinton climbing down after Congress made clear they would pass something worse if he didn’t capitulate.

    Iraq was the real problem with Hillary. If she hadn’t made that particular blunder she would have been President in 2004. The only reason we were stuck with Kerry was that we didn’t have any top drawer candidate who had opposed the war from the start. Kerry was a bad campaign candidate but he very nearly won. I think Hillary would have made Bush a one termer.

  50. Reasor says:

    Hillary was a weak enough candidate in 2008 (to liberal voters, mind you) that primary voters were willing to give a one term Senator, who nobody had heard of before, the benefit of the doubt and nominate him instead.

    She’s the same candidate now that she was then, and with due respect to some of the commenters below, supporters who try to use her gender to distract from criticism of actual policy aren’t helping her. Hilary’s gender isn’t a reason to vote against her, and it isn’t a reason to vote for her.

  51. GreatLakeSailor says:

    I agree with your first comment about Iraq, tested and approved answers, etc., etc.
    However, I could hardly disagree more with your Terry-gatcha claim.

    If anything, Terry threw HRC a softball. Terry set up an opportunity for HRC to walk through how a thinking, self analyzing, contemplative person gathers, processes, concludes then acts in a non-static world. HRC missed that oppy and thought the ole non-answer answer would work with Terry. Then HRC got testy when it didn’t.

    Terry Gross is the best interviewer ever.

  52. anon says:

    For the record, the Republican party elite supports NAFTA and deregulation. The ordinary republican never was and isnt in support of NAFTA. This is how the parties divide us, the people.

  53. anon says:

    Cant’ u stop using such derogatory language against your fellow citizens? It is the tea party, not teabaggers. It is republicans-not repubes. There are plenty of them in the armed forces and they would die to protect your right to be so obnoxious. And open your mind. this country deserves better of its citizens than you are offering. Everyone has something to teach-yes, even the tea party and republicans-thye just have a different opinion that you as to what’s best for the country.

  54. anon says:

    Only reason Obama did not vote for the Iraq war is because he abstained-like he abstained on all important votes. I’d rather choose someone that makes a choice-based on what they know then, rather than someone who plays politics.

  55. anon says:

    Just look at the language used against her even now. bitch for instance? Would anyone dare use derogatory language like that against the Obamas? This site hates Hillary Clinton-plain and simple

  56. anon says:

    Put yourself in Hillary Clinton’s shoes. Many of htese journalists, like Terry Gross, openly started supporting Barack Obama and abandonded and derided Hillary Clinton. And then to get that same antagonism from these same backstabbers..I think she did well.

  57. anon says:

    woman hater, much? Typical of the young obama voter. call any woman that has an opinion different than yours a bitch.

  58. anon says:

    Terry Gross, like most of the NPR and ‘leftist’ journalists showed their anti-women-bros before hos bias in the Democratic primary. And they can’t stand to see the woman they beat down, Hillary Clinton stand up again. I’m sure their secret listserv must have selected another bro-Deval Patrick, Cory Booker or some Hispanic man. Simple as that. Hillary Clinton, unlike Obama and Elizabeth Warren ahs the support of the ordinary man/woman, and isn’t made by the media-that’s why they hate her.

  59. Houndentenor says:

    Hate is a strong word. I thought she did a good job as Senator and I voted for her in both 2000 and 2006. I also thought she did a good job as Secretary of State. But I know I can’t trust her. I was not going to support someone who voted for the Iraq War. Someone with such bad judgment is going to make similar mistakes in the future.

  60. Houndentenor says:

    I took some time to make up my mind in 2008, but given the Clintons abysmal record on gay rights (DADT, DOMA) and her vote on Iraq (which is blowing up again. We are going to pay for this for 100 years at least!), I was definitely looking for someone else. I realize a lot of people were excited about the possibility of a woman as president, but there were too many problems and I just couldn’t ignore them. Obama was only marginally better on the issues I cared about but at least it was a chance to move forward rather than backwards. There’s a lot I miss about the 90s, but we can’t reset the clock. That time is over. We need new leadership. We also need leaders who lead and not follow whatever the opinions polls say today.

  61. Houndentenor says:

    This is why I don’t think Clinton deserves any credit for finally announcing she is for gay marriage. Leadership is driving the train, not riding in the caboose and waving as you pass by.

  62. Houndentenor says:

    Add Susan Collins. If it hadn’t been from some help (and pushing) from a few Republicans there’d have never been a DADT repeal vote in 2010 and it would still be the law. (Perhaps repealed in the courts.)

  63. Houndentenor says:

    And with more clarity. We have allowed the right to define our agenda for too long. I’m not sure why progressives such at clear and consistent messaging. There’s really no excuse for it.

  64. Houndentenor says:

    I think we need to actually have one of those Gay Agendas I keep hearing about. A simple list of things that could be easily enacted into law and that would address legal deficiencies in our current system for gay people. At the moment I don’t think we have clear messaging and in that chaos the mainstream media has latched on to marriage being the one and only gay issue. It isn’t. And a lot of that is the fault of the gay rights groups that are supposed to be representing us.

  65. Houndentenor says:

    The Hate Crimes bill was 20 years too late. Back about 1990 there was a judge in Dallas who let a group of gay-bashers off with no jail time because homophobia. I don’t think that would happen now and if it did that judge would face a major shitstorm. We needed such a law when local law enforcement wouldn’t do a damn thing for a gay person who’d been robbed or beaten or even murdered. Those days are gone. (Trans people need this kind of law because they still face the same problem.) That’s why I wasn’t that excited about the Hate Crimes Bill. I thought that energy should have been spent getting ENDA passed.

  66. Houndentenor says:

    I agree that we live in a strange era in which, “I got new information and based on that I have change my mind about issue X” is never used by politicians to explain why their positions have shifted. (Mostly because most of the time it’s “I got a big check for corporation X and so now I have to vote a different way.”)

  67. The_Fixer says:

    Simply put, Hillary Clinton (much like her husband) is an archetype of the slippery politician. You never can quite know what she stands for (as opposed to what is politically expedient) and why.

    I think it would be a mistake for her to be our first woman President. I’d much rather see Elizabeth Warren or any one of a number of qualified women to hold that office. And yes, I think it would be a a long-overdue plus to have a woman as President. Men have been F’n things up since the beginning, a woman could do no worse and will likely do a whole lot better (if she’s otherwise qualified).

    Now we can talk about how divided people who are progressive and, through lack of choice, vote Democratic, truly are and how we fix that.


  68. heimaey says:

    If you don’t compare someone to Hitler or Stalin your point will never be made, though. It’s definitely not a ridiculous and extreme cliche.

  69. heimaey says:

    I somewhat agree. I grew up never really considering marriage as an option. I remember in 96 my friend was having a wedding ceremony with his boyfriend on a beach in LA and thinking that’s nice, it doesn’t mean anything in the eyes of the law and NEVER thinking it would ever be recognized in our lifetime. So the reality just was never on my radar.

  70. Myrddin Wyllt says:

    Well some folk were a lot more into Obama than I was. I could not see that there was a major policy difference and suspected Obama might be to the right of Hillary.

    Does not make much difference as they are both much further to the left of what they can get through Congress. It is difficult to know where Obama actually stands on anything but he probably comes out with as much of what he wants from the engagements with the Republicans.

  71. Myrddin Wyllt says:

    Don’t forget also having control of Congress.

    And agreeing to make one simple demand that has the whole movement behind it.

    I don’t think there is the slightest risk that ENDA will be vetoed. There is no scenario in which the Republicans can gain the WH without also keeping the Senate and House.

    But if the Republicans keep the House they will stop ENDA and Immigration reform because they are bigots, cynics and psychopaths. Santorum, Cheney and Bush all agree on the same policy but for different reasons.

  72. Myrddin Wyllt says:


    Clinton tried to issue an executive order allowing gays to serve in the military in the first week he started office. That was the original starting point.

    The Clintons did not reckon with Colin Powell betraying his uniform and going behind his back to Congress. That is how we ended up with DADT, Congress threatened to do something nastier and they had the votes.

    The same happened on DOMA which passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses.

    Remember that in those days Congress still had a large number of nominal Democrats from the Southern states who consistently voted Republican on social issues.

  73. BeccaM says:

    Also, for those who want to point to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes law as an accomplishment… well, for a law that’s been on the books for nearly five years, it’s proven to be almost pointless.

    Out of three prosecutions total, only one was for an actual anti-gay bias crime, in 2012, after Kentucky authorities declined to prosecute a case involving a gang beating of Kevin Pennington in 2011.

    One prosecution in nearly five years.

  74. BeccaM says:

    Exactly. When we stop being passive and stop accepting words rather than deeds, we get results.

  75. LucySinclairsyk says:

    Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
    on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  76. Bill_Perdue says:

    Your questions are moot because there are few differences between the parties except cosmetic differences.

    What you’re engaging in is pre-election fear mongering and happily, fewer and fewer people fall for it. And if they do fall for it they’re getting angrier and angrier in the post election period.

  77. Bill_Perdue says:

    Agreed. The Clintons and Obama are functional bigots who don’t give a rats ass about LGBT equality. When they changed their minds and rebranded it was for votes and contributions.

  78. Bill_Perdue says:

    “But Hillary has always had gays around her.” And so did Reagan. That didn’t prevent him from ignoring HIV until it was far too late to stop it and it didn’t prevent the Clintons from giving us DOMA and DADT.

  79. Mark_in_MN says:

    It seems that part of what attaches to Terry Gross’s questions, and her very particular follow-up, is that it is somehow a problem for politicians to change their minds. We get this quite frequently from the media. It seems to be a bad thing for someone to have a different opinion from one they expressed years ago. It doesn’t matter if what’s changed is the individual’s own personal views or if what’s changed is the political viability of a policy preference, either is painted as bad to terrible. I’m not sure that either is, in actuality. We seem to insist that politicians not be human beings who grow and change and make decisions like everyone else.

  80. AnitaMann says:

    TG really was trying to goad HRC into saying, “yes I’m a politician who took the politically convenient stance back then because I didn’t have the courage of my convictions.” Fine. HRC wouldn’t take the bait. Fine. But really, we’re not going to have a chance to vote for anyone who was 100 percent openly pro same-sex marriage 20 years ago because there weren’t that many. Maybe Bernie Sanders was, but I doubt it. So in a way this Where Did You Stand In The 90s question is kind of beside the point.

  81. Mark_in_MN says:

    Statements like these really make me wonder what kind of preparation or experience does the statement maker regarded as necessary for being the president of the United States (or any other office).

    It’s not that experience doesn’t matter. It does. People can really muck things up if they aren’t well prepared for an office. That being said, I suspect that there are actually people who don’t appear to have a worthy resume for a given office who will be superb at it, and people who look like they have the perfect resume that will be nearly the worst disaster conceivable.

  82. FLL says:

    My apologies. It’s true that the biggest problem for ENDA in 2010 was the Senate, but as a result, the House never voted for it. The main point in my reply above was that Hillary was no longer in the Senate in 2010.

  83. Silver_Witch says:

    You are not right that I hate her. That is not true. I don’t have to hate someone not to vote for them. I don’t agree with her politics pure and simple.

    I see you have changed your post from the original about six years ago….sorry you did as I probably would have agreed that the hatred for non-Hillary supports was pretty intense as well. It was a hard experience. One I hope not to relive.

  84. CB says:

    I remember those days well, and yes your assessment is correct.

  85. Silver_Witch says:

    And you will not hear anything….or at least nothing you can use to determine her belief, stance or plan.

  86. crazymonkeylady says:

    I’m not sold on HRC. I would much prefer Elizabeth Warren!

  87. No, I think my assessment is completely correct. I am referring to six years ago when you couldn’t say a good word about her on this site without being deluged with abuse. As for how much things have changed in six years, we’ll see.

  88. Silver_Witch says:

    Actually – I would have respect for Hillary if she had said “yes, I secretly supported gay marriage all along but didn’t say so for political reasons” that is something I could totally understand….just like if Bill Clinton had gotten on TV and said “yeah I let her blow me – it was great”. Which I could also totally understand (men like that a lot and it often impairs their judgment). So yeah truth – try it – it rocks!

  89. Silver_Witch says:

    Agreed – Bill Clinton cares passionately for one thing – Pussy…and only Pussy. Politics is/was just his way of getting all the Pussy he wanted.

  90. Silver_Witch says:

    Ohhh willibro….I wish I could up vote this 1,000,000 times!!!! Perfect retort – Dip, Snap!!

  91. Bookbinder says:

    Why in the world would anyone trust this woman? Talks out of both sides of her mouth. And says nothing. Backstabbing bitch then. And now.

  92. discus_sucks_ass says:

    a false narrative is still false no matter how much you want to believe it

  93. Silver_Witch says:

    It goes pretty fast Elijah……even I listened and I didn’t even have to listen in small bits.

  94. Silver_Witch says:

    I don’t think anyone here hates her supporters. I don’t think we hate Hillary either. I just prefer her not to be my President and I won’t vote for her. I won’t vote for my dog Tashi either, I love her madly, she is great, just not presidential material. So I think maybe you are taking the comments personally when it is just how people feel….

    Personally I am sure Hillary Clinton is a very nice woman for one who is stuck in the thinking of the 50’s.

  95. Silver_Witch says:

    I too am voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary and I am hoping that Hillary gets a surprise akin to that which Cantor experienced this week in that Bernie wins the primary and she is kicked to the curb. Cantor is proof that it CAN happen.

  96. AnitaMann says:

    Just listened to the LGBT part. I thought HRC did all right. Terri tried to play gocha and HRC pushed back and clarified her past positions and even if she wasn’t being completely honest I believe her on this. But my original point remains: doesn’t matter. I want to know what she would do in the future on economic equality and helping to un-screw the 99 percent. I haven’t heard anything on that.

  97. FLL says:

    Over the years of seeing Hillary in political settings, I’ve noticed that she simply cannot tolerate any atmosphere other than a cocoon of support. When confronted with even the mildest criticism, she unravels. This is not something you want in a president.

  98. Brian C. Bock says:

    I understand that this is probably so for many people. But Hillary has always had gays around her. This was not a new idea she needed to get used to. This was cold calculated Clinton political math. These people are famous for triangulation and using people for their own political ends. Bill and Hill used gays. Obama didn’t entirely remove us from the Clinton chess set, I’m sure. We’ll find out in the election how they will use us then. Did gross ask Hillary Clinton about trans people?

  99. AnitaMann says:

    I just listened to the first part of the interview, about Iraq. Haven’t heard the gay part yet. I feel like I know why I’m uncomfortable with HRC. I don’t have a good sense of what she stands for. Every politician has to make compromises, but I feel like she starts from the triangulation position rather than conviction. Everything answer feels scripted and tested and controlled. She’s not the only politician to do this, but she does it so transparently.

  100. Brian C. Bock says:

    What’s wrong about asking for a clean answer on this. Why is this so hard for Hillary to be honest about this. If it’s no big deal anymore, and I don’t think it is anymore, why not just admit, yes, she was going along with the rest of America on the issue and when America changed its mind, so did she.

  101. Indigo says:

    You’re right, of course, the GayTM has a strong voice and we can exercise pressure. We should do it more often and more consistently.

  102. Brian C. Bock says:

    I’d put Bill Clinton into the category of opportunist bigot. He was willing to do bigoted thing, not necessarily out of any specific animus toward gays, but because he didn’t give a shit about them and saw that going against us would gain him political points. Even when Obama did his big switch, Bill tried to glom onto the accolades and grab some for himself, and was all defensive when gays reminded him of DOMA and DADT.

  103. Brian C. Bock says:

    This deserves to be its own post.

  104. Silver_Witch says:

    This is the perfect proof of why Hillary Clinton would not be a good president. She can’t just come out and say what she thinks. I grew up believing in gay marriage….from day one I could not understand why only Whites could marry Whites or Men could not marry a Man that they loved…why they could not even hold hands in public without endangering their life. That was the 60’s….when she was a young adult – so perhaps she is not a very free thinker or actually a liberal/progressive at all.

    Additionally, Hillary Clinton’s anger at being directly asked what she thinks shows that she is only going to tell us what she thinks if she thinks it will get her our vote. We will never really know what she believes.

    And oh she is proud of people willing to be out front about their beliefs…but she is not going to be one of those people out front.

  105. Brian C. Bock says:

    Hillary is going to have to grow a thicker skin. This was essentially friendly fire. Wait until she gets the non-stop barrage about Benghazi, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Monica, et al. She should have had a GOOD answer.

    She could have told the truth: “Yes, politics is a factor in everything a politician does and says. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. Politics was a factor in my reluctance to embrace marriage equailty. It was wrong and I regret it and I now celebrate that a growing number of Americans… ” blah blah blah.

    She could have gone with the plausible lie: “I, like MOST Americans have evolved on this very important issue. Just look at this sea change in our country….” blah blah blah.

    Instead she decided to attack Terry Gross, which was weak and ridiculous. She needs to do better than that or she’s heading for a huge trip. I’m annoyed she allowed herself that anger and lashed out. She needs some personality coaching, stat.

  106. sophie says:

    I agree about the “war crimes, warrantless eavesdropping, torture/rendition, and illegal drone attacks.” Maybe things will have to become so abysmal in this country that a real progressive will finally emerge. But that will be awhile.
    However, what would you be doing if Mittens had made it into the White House, I wonder?
    The question is–who will the Repugs run in 2016? And, if a teabagger manages to become POTUS, the anti-gay Christopaths will be out in force, as they already are in Texass and other red states. How about the asshole in OK who apparently supported stoning for gays? For the record, I’m not gay, and these people scare the hell out of me.

  107. sophie says:

    NPR was taken over by the right wing corporate interests (including the Koch brothers) some time ago. Gross is most likely shilling for her corporate masters. A simple google search will show the demise of NPR as well as PBS, which began when Bush ruled.
    Whatever Hillary is or isn’t, the right wing will be attacking her non-stop.

  108. pappyvet says:

    We have always been like the orphan child at the picnic for the dems. And the black orphan child at the white picnic for the repubes. One might feed us the other does not want us to touch the food. Either way we look at this being accepted with open arms has not ever been the norm.
    I really do not want the repubes in a position to decide our fate. But I am not at all sure that uncircling the wagons for the dems is a smart choice. We are as we have always been , on our own with the rights that should be ours as our only true ally.

  109. Thom Allen says:

    Hillary was trying her best to weasel out of making a clear statement on her current and previous positions on same-sex marriage. She didn’t do a good job of it at all. She danced all around the topic was overly verbose and unclear. Unlike many reporters, Gross was persistent and called Hillary out and took her to task. Hillary was clearly angry and lost points for that, as well. Gross 2+, Clinton 1-

    More reporters should ask questions and be persistent when they’re confronted by a heaping pile of bullsh*t, not just do the, “Thanks feed me some more” routine that’s so common in political reporting and news..

  110. FLL says:

    Your points about Hillary’s finances are on target. My general feeling is that her sympathies are extremely corporatist. For that reason, I’d prefer a different candidate. The statutory corporate rate has been reduced from over 50% in the 1950s to its current 35%. I think the higher rate from the 1950s is reasonable, and I certainly don’t think Hillary is a candidate who would be in favor of returning to the higher corporate tax rate of the 1950s. But it’s still a year and a half away. I’d like to see who jumps into the race.

  111. jomicur says:

    A reporter who keeps following up rather than let the subject of the interview weasel out of answering honestly is a reporter who’s doing her job. Would that we had a lot more like her.

  112. Ben A. Varkentine says:

    Does Terry bring up the fact that Bill reportedly urged Kerry to throw homosexuals under the bus in hopes of winning?

  113. Bill_Perdue says:

    H. L. Mencken – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    Emma Goldman – “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

    On Tuesday, the 4th of November, 2014 and on Tuesday, the 8th of November, 2016 vote socialist, vote for referendums for a decent minimum wage, write in Chelsea Manning or just sit
    it out as a protest vote.

    And in the meantime keep pusi9ng for a robust EO without any expemptions for the cutls.

  114. lynchie says:

    I guess my point is that she is not a liberal, though I can’t really name any for that matter. Speeches are interesting, Obama makes fantastic ones and I am sure they will be displayed in his Presidential Library but aside from speeches what has Hillary championed.
    NPR has every right to challenge her and press her on a whole host of issues. She can’t get pissy whenever she feels the coronation is being questioned. Like her comments of the Clintons leaving office hugely in debt. The debt she talks about was from legal fees for the Blowjob inquiries and sorry don’t do the crime won’t have to do the time. Who doesn[t live in debt and now getting $200,000 a speech she has nothing to worry about. The Clinton Foundation has $100 million or so on hand. Like all 1%ers they whine but never connect with people living week to week and not having someone to ghost write a book for them.

  115. FLL says:

    Some congressmen (e.g., Rep. Murphy from Pennsylvania and Senator Levin from Michigan) and some military men deserve credit for helping to end DADT, but I hope history remembers that GetEQUAL had a huge hand in ending DADT. Your point is well taken.

  116. BeccaM says:

    The alternatives aren’t “anti-gay GOP bigots” vs “whatever the Dems deign to give us.”

    I truly think DADT’s repeal was what happens when we refuse to take “no, sorry, can’t do it, come back in a few years” for an answer. In other words, yet another alternative is “what we can pressure the Dems to do for us, because the political cost of ignoring our demands is too high.” They do pay attention when the GayTM is threatened with closure.

  117. Indigo says:

    And yet . . .

  118. FLL says:

    The politicians–in this case, Democratic politicians–were definitely lagging behind American culture in general. This is one instance where Bill Perdue often makes a good point about society leading social change, although he uses the rather awkward phrase “mass movements.” I take that to mean the greater society, and I agree that the vast majority of politicians have a cowardly track record. During the 1990s and in this century, the politicians were led by the American people, not vice versa. It’s only the rare politician who shakes off the mantle of cowardice and becomes a statesman. Worse, however, are many Republican politicians who are bigots on principle.

  119. willibro says:

    “Obama …has certainly been a lot better than any Republican alternative.”
    Oh yeah, absolutely. One thing I can look forward to when Obama retires to his lobbying career and the Hilbot loses: Democrats can go back to opposing war crimes, warrantless eavesdropping, torture/rendition, and illegal drone attacks.

  120. emjayay says:

    I think the way it works is they have to decide to run themselves.

  121. emjayay says:

    Just a guess, but I imagine a bunch of them would run. Not the random clown car of the other party, but a bunch.

  122. BeccaM says:

    Here’s the problem I have with the Democrats — and with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and most of the rest of the Dem leadership: Much of the time, and especially in the years leading up to the 2010 mid-term election results, they had to be dragged to the table to do anything meaningful (i.e., more than mere words) for gay rights.

    This very same site has used the term “political homophobia” repeatedly — and accurately — to describe Democratic positions and actions for the last two decades.

    It can be argued, reasonably, that Bill Clinton couldn’t have done anything to stop DADT or DOMA being passed, not when it was ConservaDems in his own party pushing for them. Veto-proof majorities. Many folks now don’t remember the anti-gay backlash of the early to mid 90s, where even the littlest hint there might be pro-gay progress was met with ruthlessly vindictive opposition. We only had a portion of the Democratic party publicly backing LGBT rights and none of the Republicans.

    Still, the perception was that the Dems acted like they were ashamed to actually DO anything pro-gay. In the wake of DADT’s passage, President Clinton issued any number of statements indicating gays wouldn’t be discharged for having a relationship, or being seen in a gay bar or at a pride parade — yet that’s exactly what happened. (DADT was also used as a tool for sexual harassment, coercion, and even rape.) Clinton’s sin was in failing to ensure the law wasn’t used as an anti-gay bludgeon, and as C-in-C, he had the authority to issue those orders. He chose not to.

    Obama could have imposed a full moratorium on DADT discharges the day he took office. He did not. The law was clear, that the armed forces and indeed the entire chain of command up to the President himself had the authority to override DADT with the simple justification of national security and defense needs. They didn’t. The President failed to lead.

    Obama campaigned on a promise to issue an Executive Order banning employment discrimination against gays and lesbians by federal contractors. He has had that authority since January 2009 — yet has not exercised it.

    The Dems did not act on ENDA or DOMA when they had the majority and the WH. Obama famously did not lobby for Senate cloture on ENDA when it was just a few votes away from passage. (And I for one refuse to blame the Trans* community; the Senate could have passed the non-inclusive bill and had the remainder worked out in conference.) As for DADT, I’m sorry, but the repeal of that was sabotaged quite deliberately with the unnecessary study and its post-mid-term timing, as well as Obama taking 2/3 of a year to complete the repeal certification — despite his promise of ‘weeks not months.’

    The DoD could have been ordered, since DADT’s repeal, to begin upgrading Less Than Honorable and Dishonorable discharges to Honorable, to restore pensions and benefits eligibility for servicemen and women kicked out for their sexual orientation. This also has not happened.

    Same with DOMA. Bill Clinton actually tried to claim it was a net gain for gay marriage equality. And then didn’t bother to try to find any Executive branch remedies to lessen the discrimination. Fast forward to Obama: He could have ordered the deportations of bi-national couples to be suspended, but didn’t until the DOMA overturn was nigh. (I do have to give Obama and his administration for going full steam ahead on marriage equality now, however. I really love it every time a handful of gay marriages happen in states where the ban is overturned, and the DoJ preemptively says the Feds will recognize those marriages. Kudos earned.)

    The official position of the Clinton and Dubya administrations — and initially the Obama administration — was that DADT and DOMA were Constitutional. Look how long it took before the Obama administration admitted they did not need to take a pro-DOMA position before the courts. However, even now, everybody knows ENDA — T-inclusive or not — will never pass the GOP-controlled House, yet Obama won’t do what does lie within his power, and that’s the Executive Order.

    I’m not arguing at all that the GOPers would be better. We know they’re not. In fact, President ‘Mormon Bishop’ Romney undoubtedly would’ve been horrible for gay rights. His SCOTUS nominees would’ve kept DOMA alive. All I’m trying to say is we’ve been wounded far too many times by the timidity, cowardice and political homophobia of our would-be Democratic leadership allies — and that sometimes the stick needs to replace the carrot. I’m not saying “shoot the horse” (although I know there are some here who do feel that way). I’m saying that a horse that keeps getting carrots and sugar cubes when it misbehaves will learn it needs never obey.

    As for Hillary Clinton herself… she’s been all over the map on marriage equality and seems quite often to have been guilty of ‘triangulating.’ For an entire decade, from 2003 up until just last year (March 2013), her repeated and oft-stated position was she favored civil unions for gay and lesbian couples — not marriage. Civil unions, not marriage, was also her 2008 presidential campaign position (Obama was way more wishy-washy, but also opposed in general).

    Personally, the one time when I realized it was politics and not personal convictions for her came in a 2007 interview, when HRC was asked if she thought homosexuality was immoral and she replied, “Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.” (A day later she walked back this remark and then disavowed it, apparently realizing she’d stepped in it big-time.)

    Anyway, I’m also not seeing a big deal with this Terry Gross interview. A question is asked, a politician doesn’t want to give a specific or substantive answer, interviewer keeps asking the question, politician (unable to change the subject) becomes somewhat testy. I don’t have a problem with the premise of Terry Gross’s question, particularly since the Democrats do seem to want to continue playing politics with LGBT rights — and I personally see, for example, this “No EO from Obama” vs “Pointless ENDA drama and wheel-spinning in the Senate” as crystal clear evidence it hasn’t ended. I further think it’s a fair question to put to Hillary Clinton because she was so vocal all those years in insisting gays and lesbians should be relegated to separate-but-unequal civil unions.

  123. emjayay says:

    To be fair, nothing will ever be taken up for a vote in the Republican-controlled House.

  124. emjayay says:

    Sorry, but Terri Gross is hardly a Republican.

  125. FLL says:

    If only I could give your comment a thousand “likes”…

  126. Ninong says:

    Yes, that’s absolutely right. Rudy Giuliani was considered to have a lock on the GOP nomination and Hillary Clinton was considered to be guaranteed to be the choice of the Democrats. Until they weren’t.

    Right now Hillary is considered to have a lock on the Democratic nomination. Will another Democrat pop up to challenge her? I guess we’ll have to just wait to see if that happens once again. Will it be Martin O’Malley this time?

  127. atalex says:

    Anyway, whatever happens with a Hillary campaign, in 2016, we will have have the choice of (a) a center-left Democrat, (b) a Republican loon whom anyone with an IQ above 90 can see would be a disaster for the nation, or (c) not voting for either so you can feel “ideologically pure.” I plan to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, but I’m also honest and aware enough to acknowledge that we’re more likely to get wiped out by the killer asteroid than to see him win the primary, let along the general election.

  128. Anthony Vásquez says:

    This is just telling us what we always knew: the political calculation of the Clintons. I believe Bill famously advised Democrats (whether it was Hillary or someone else) to not support gay marriage, as a kinda Sister Souljah-ing for Democrats, i.e. a way to reach across the aisle for Conservatives.
    That’s what’s annoying is that you know she (like Obama) fully supported gay marriage, but it was not politically-mainstream to do so. Basically they had more to gain by being against it, than for it (my, have the times changed). And just other little stuff, like Hillary’s support for Iraq (just to make her look tough and Thatcher-esque) to her wearing a Yankees cap when she’s a Cubs fan (“the Cubs are my National League team, Yankees my American League team”). She just comes across as disingenuous. But if she runs, I’ll support her. She pisses off Republicans and the Right (all due to the fact that she wanted to actually get shit done as a First Lady, instead of being an empty dress like Nancy Reagan), and nothing gets me more excited than upset Republicans.

  129. Bill_Perdue says:

    The left looks forward to the nomination of HRH HRClinton. She’s the penultimate proof of the absolute bankruptcy of the lesser evil idiocy so beloved by Democrats and Dixiecrats. with her nomination socialists will have a field day and our support will increase.

    People are sick and tired of lap dogs of the rich like Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama.

  130. Ninong says:

    She and Bill were both a little late to the party on full support for gay marriage. Everyone already knows that. Why did Terry Gross even bring that up? It’s not news.
    Hillary and Bill were both burned by their experience early in his first term in trying to get open service for gays in the military and healthcare reform (Hillary Care). Maybe that’s why both of them delayed coming out in favor of gay marriage.

    Terry Gross wanted to force Hillary to respond either “yes, I secretly supported gay marriage all along but didn’t say so for political reasons,” or “no, I did not support gay marriage before but I have reversed my position on that.” She refused to accept Hillary’s explanation that everyone was moving in the direction of more acceptance of full equality for gays and that’s something she whole-heartedly supports and it’s a basic part of her political position.

  131. atalex says:

    And of course the interview was hard hitting. It was NPR (Nice Polite Republicans) interviewing a prominent Democrat.

  132. Bill_Perdue says:

    Bill Clinton championed DOMA and boasted about it’s passage. Pretending that he wasn’t a bigot won’t cut it.

    He also championed and signed other Republican bills like NAFTA and the deregulation acts of 1999 and 2000 and is responsible for the Crash of 2007.

  133. AnitaMann says:

    “Hillary is the best hole Democrats have to hold onto the White House”? Well that’s the conventional wisdom, isn’t it? I guess if people repeat that enough they think they will make it true. IIRC, Rudy Giuliani was the R’s best hope, circa 2007. And then there was that guy who sounded like Forghorn Leghorn. She is well known but she has big vulnerabilities. Wasn’t she a shoe-in for the nomination on January 1, 2008, until… she wasn’t?

  134. Bill_Perdue says:

    She was on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors at the time. The Rose law firm did a lot of legal work for them. She’s still getting paid off by Wal-Mart.

  135. just_AC says:

    Is it too much to hope that Alan Grayson runs?

    Probably, but I sure would endorse him

  136. AnitaMann says:

    I’ll listen to it in the car on my commute. But I don’t care that much. Hillary’s a panderer and she’s changed her positions (“nuanced” for different audiences). But so what? I already know that. On marriage equality, it doesn’t matter what she thinks, or thought, anymore. That train has left the station. It’s happening. What I care about is whether her administration would be a continuation of her husband’s (NAFTA love, Wall Street suck up, etc.) If it is, and I have seen no evidence that it won’t, D’s and progressives need to start drafting someone else. R’s can’t win nationally anymore. We can do better than a conservadem with a famous name.

  137. Bill_Perdue says:

    She promoted NAFTA and deregulation which produced the housing bubble which burst and caused the Crash or 2007. She voted for the Paytriot Act.

  138. Houndentenor says:

    No one can be above criticism. Also, all my criticisms of HRC would be considered pluses by the right, so I don’t know how that hurts her in the hypothetical general election.

  139. Ninong says:

    DADT passed just in the nick of time thanks to Pelosi and Reid. Obama was absolutely not in favor of pushing that before the mid-terms. Obama finally finished his evolution process and came out strongly in favor of gay marriage before the 2012 presidential election. Maybe that was because his pollsters told him it would be better to do it before rather than after the election? Everyone figured he would do it after his re-election, maybe during his State of the Union speech but he did the right thing and announced that decision in the summer of 2012.

    The thing I remember distinctly about the early days of the Obama administration is that they began to backpedal on their campaign promises within weeks after moving into the White House. Certain phrases were dropped from their website or edited to reflect a more wishy-washy maybe sort of promise.

    Remember when Obama’s token gay administration flunky said that they intended to fulfill their promises to the gay community “before the sun sets on this administration?” Boy, was that ever a mouthful that perfectly reflected their goals once they were elected. And I don’t think he meant their first term either. At that time they were convinced that they were in the White House for the next eight years.

  140. Bill_Perdue says:

    They own her. : “Hillary Clinton’s K Street network is preparing for a White House run in 2016. With Democrats in Congress already anointing Clinton as the party’s standard-bearer, lobbyists are pledging their allegiance and making clear they will do whatever they can to help the former first lady become first in command.”

    She’ll be as bad as Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, B Clinton and Obama and that’s very bad indeed.

  141. Houndentenor says:

    I heard “who else is there?” nonstop from 2005-2007. It wasn’t true then that there was no one else and it isn’t true now. If shes the nominee I will vote for her. I may even vote for her in the primary depending on who else is running. But I’m not excited about someone I already know has questionable judgment (esp when I consider her Iraq vote).

  142. Houndentenor says:

    I wish more reporters would do this. I’m sick of politicians not actually answering the questions she was asked. Brava to La Gross for not cowering in front of Clinton.

  143. Houndentenor says:

    The two reasons I did not support her in 2008 were her vote on Iraq and her history (with her husband) of throwing loyal gay suporters under the bus (DADT, DOMA). Excuses excuses excuses because reasons. Okay so that was the bullshit we had to endure in the 90s. It’s the 2010s and I’d like a candidate who actually supports gay rights and doesn’t wait until polling is over 50% to make a statement.

  144. Bill_Perdue says:

    Exactly correct.

    The lesser of two evils is a bankrupt theory that was to used to promote Dixiecrat bigots like Bill Clinton and right wing union busters and warmongers like Obama. Voting for Clinton produced the Crash of 2007 and the murder of half a million Iraqi children. Voting for Obama produced more of the same.

    The only thing that will change things around is to ignore the Dixiecrats, the Republicans and the Democrats and to join the hundreds of thousands who are moving towards independent political action.

  145. Houndentenor says:

    For the same reason Republicans keep pushing for yet another vote to repeal ACA. It’s a political strategy. It has no impact on any real people but it’s supposed to make us think the Senate is actually doing something, which they aren’t.

  146. Houndentenor says:

    It’s a perfectly clear question. Did she change her mind on gay marriage or did she wait until it seemed safe to say she’d been for it all along. None of the possible answers make her look good in my opinion. But excuse me for failing to be impressed by someone so behind the curve on this issue.

  147. Ninong says:

    Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland wants to run but I doubt that he will run against Hillary if she announces. He would almost certainly run just as soon as she says she has decided not to run.

  148. Houndentenor says:

    You really have to listen to the whole thing to get the point. A quote or two won’t give you the full picture of the lengths to which HRC goes to avoid answering what was a straight-forward question and one for which she ought to have been prepared.

  149. Houndentenor says:

    Thanks for reminding me why I didn’t support her in 2008 and hope that we find a better candidate for 2016. This is not leadership. Yes, I accept that people can change their views over time but she was behind the curve every step of the way. I do not know why some gay people are so enamored of her. I’m supposed to be impressed that she wasn’t in favor of gay marriage until more than 50% of Americans were on board? And once again she acts victimized when someone asks her what is a perfectly legitimate line of questioning. I’m tired of this nonsense from our elected officials. I may be stuck with this kind of politics for the next 10 years, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t look for preferable alternatives.

  150. Bill_Perdue says:

    Hillary Clinton will be an effective leader for war industries, for Wal-Mart and other union busters and for those who want to stall legislation to protect the LGBT communities and others.

  151. Bill_Perdue says:

    How is it possible to bash a right wing loon like Hillary Clinton?

    How is it possible to bash a rabid warmonger like Hillary Clinton?

    How is it possible to bash a NAFTA loving union buster like Hillary Clinton who learned the ropes of anti worker politics during her six on the Board or Directors of Wal-Mart.

    Hillary Clinton is still getting money from the Walton litter. Billionaires Alice Walton, George Soros and Marc Benioff are helping to finance a super-political action committee encouraging former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for president, according to a report filed yesterday with the Federal Election

    How is it possible to bash a racist who used the race card against Obama at every opportunity?'s_campaign_ieds_(insinuations,_exaggerations_and_distortions and

  152. Ninong says:

    The Senate has already passed an LGBT version of ENDA. They did that last year with bipartisan support (64-32) but it’s never going to be taken up in the Republican Tea Party-controlled House.

  153. I’d say this site wasn’t merely “quite tough” on Hillary. I’d say it HATED Hillary with a passion. And Hillary supporters as well. Can’t wait to follow this site if/when she runs.

  154. heimaey says:

    You can also link to start videos at certain points FYI.

  155. BeccaM says:

    Which then begs the question: Why are the Dems making noise about the Senate passing any ENDA — T or non-T inclusive — when everybody knows it’ll never be taken up by the House, if it is anything other than total political posturing?

  156. emjayay says:

    Who is generally to the right of Hillary?

  157. emjayay says:

    I’d be happy with Bernie Sanders as president. On the other hand, his candidacy would guarantee a Right wing Talibanegelical freak as president, unless he maybe campaigned by doing buttfucking demonstrations at the debates.

  158. emjayay says:

    High school or college?

  159. emjayay says:

    Or, nothing like Valdmir Putin. Or Hitler.

  160. emjayay says:

    The original comment is too absurd to even address, but still I would point out that she also was a lawyer with years of law firm experience and worked with Bill on a lot of issues when he was governor. And she is smart and articulate.

  161. emjayay says:

    It was exactly like the Obama administration. I was constantly extremely disappointed in the political compromises and lack of strong vision. And I had to, and still have to constantly remind myself that this is by far the best we can possibly do under the circumstances, which are even worse than then.

  162. Ninong says:

    Yes, I’m talking about the LGBT version of ENDA which has never passed the House. Back in 2007, the LGB version of ENDA (the T was dropped) passed the House but died in the Senate because there weren’t enough votes for cloture, including some Democrats who refused to vote for it.

    Right now there is an LGBT version of ENDA that passed the Senate with bipartisan support last year but it will never be taken up for a vote in the Republican-controlled House.

  163. emjayay says:

    OK, I don’t have to comment now. Thanks.

  164. emjayay says:

    You are talking about the T, and you are right.

  165. emjayay says:

    The whole interview is pretty interesting. Terri Gross is the best.

  166. Ninong says:

    Was that the same version of ENDA as the present version?

  167. Ninong says:

    I think the real problem was Obama who didn’t want to force certain recently elected Democratic members of Congress to have to go on the record on any gay issues before the mid-term elections. DADT’s repeal was a miracle pushed through by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid without any strong support from Obama. That didn’t stop Obama from taking full credit for it passage after the fact.

    One of the problems with the current ENDA is something that can’t be discussed on this or any other gay-oriented form without bringing down the wrath of certain people who will descend upon us like a biblical plague. Let’s just say that a slightly less inclusive ENDA had a very good chance of passage but then it was made more inclusive and that seems to be a sticking point with certain Democrats. Of course, it doesn’t matter right now because the Republicans control the House and they will never bring up ENDA for a vote.

  168. FLL says:

    You’re right. In 2010, ENDA was passed by the House and died in the Senate. But Hillary wasn’t in the Senate anymore in 2010. There’s plenty of blame to go around for cowardly senators who wouldn’t vote for cloture.

  169. FLL says:

    She accomplished nothing memorable as U.S. senator from New York, apart from voting for the Iraq War, as you mention below. She made one very good speech on human rights and gay rights in front of the United Nations, which is a plus. On balance, I still think there are plenty of candidates who could do a better job than Hillary. I don’t claim to be any fortune teller. We’ll see.

  170. Webster says:

    At least you can listen to an interview here. For some reason, videos never work for me on AmericaBlog, I always have to go to another site if I want to see/hear what’s been posted.

  171. lynchie says:

    But what did she accomplish?

  172. Ninong says:

    What experience did 30-yr-old Teddy Kennedy have to be elected to the Senate except that he ran his brother’s successful presidential campaign and the fact that his brother was president and his other brother was attorney general. He seems to have worked out pretty well at on-the-job training. Brother Bobby worked out okay as attorney general in spite of his young age and lack of any actual court experience.

    I guess Americans yearn for the days of monarchy and that’s why we keep electing family members whose main qualification is family name. That started all the way back with our 2nd and 6th presidents. So having three brothers elected to the Senate and one of them make it to the White House is not all that unexpected. Our experience with our 41st and 43rd presidents was not all that great.

    Hopefully the second Clinton administration will be even better than the first, which wasn’t all that bad in retrospect.

  173. lynchie says:

    so she got elected and was appointed to a position. Lots of folks go to Washington. But what did she accomplish besides going to war in Iraq

  174. trinu says:

    Or we could simply nominate someone else.

  175. trinu says:

    When it came to ENDA (prior to the 2010 elections) wasn’t the biggest problem in the Senate, where certain Dems refused to vote for cloture?

  176. BeminDC says:

    OH SNAP. ;)

  177. jomicur says:

    If citing her record constitutes “trashing” her, what on earth does that say about her?

  178. Thus the reason I told you to tune into the last 2 minutes. Can’t do all the work for you, honey — do you know what it entails trying to transcribe an interview? ;-) It’s actually quite a lot of work just when I grab the Jon Stewart quotes, which I usually transcribe.

  179. BeminDC says:

    It was about 30 seconds worth of material rehashed about 15 times . . .

  180. Indigo says:

    As the wise old owl said, “Who?”

  181. BeminDC says:

    Oh, she’s mostly certainly running. She’s been running for several years.

  182. Indigo says:

    HRCPOTUS2016, possibly the only workable option.

  183. FLL says:

    I understand your point, but it’s still a little early to discount other progressive candidates grabbing the Democratic (or even the Republican) nomination. Obama was a surprise in January of 2008.

  184. Elijah Shalis says:

    Am I the only one not wanting to listen to a 7 1/2 minutes interview. Just type up the juicy details.

  185. Indigo says:

    Let us not sacrifice the possible on the Altar of Perfection.

  186. Indigo says:

    I reluctantly agree but I would amend that thought to point out that we’re on the way to developing a strong surveillance state (Police State in ordinary talk) and if anybody can make something that messy work, it’ll be Hillary.

  187. BeminDC says:

    I appreciate your thoughtful posts. I do wish people would throw some names out there, though, rather than speaking of generic alternatives. I don’t see any that I’d be willing to support at this time, even some who I respect very much like Senator Warren (who has said she’s not running, not that that’s a particular barrier, as I recall a certain young senator from Illinois saying the same thing . . .). I think it’s going to be Hillary and I’m going to support her. This interview did not move me in a positive or negative direction on that one. I do fear that she’s getting out there too early after having been pretty smart about avoiding over-exposure. In a perfect world, all of this would start up around late-2015 or so, instead of a perpetual campaign . . .

  188. Ninong says:

    Terry Gross was unprofessional in the way she insisted on restating the obvious over and over in an attempt to get Hillary Clinton to respond exactly the way Gross wanted instead of simply letting Clinton’s own words stand.

    We all know that in 1992 Bill Clinton ran on a platform of allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces and a commitment to advocate for equality for gays in all areas of American life. Unfortunately Clinton was no Lyndon Johnson when it came to controlling his own political party. Southern Democrats pushed back hard against Clinton’s proposed progressive agenda. DOMA and DADT were both compromises forced on the administration by uncooperative congressional Democrats.

    Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) was especially vicious in his open attacks on gays. He was insisting on an absolute ban on gays serving in the military under any conditions. Unless you’re old enough to remember those debates, you wouldn’t believe the crap he spouted. And the heads of the military branches, especially the Marine Corps, chimed in with their own opinions about gay promiscuity and the risk of spreading AIDS due to close quarters in combat.

    DADT was a compromise forced on the Clinton administration by homophobic Southern Democrats like Sam Nunn, who was regarded at the time as an expert on all things military. The same thing happened with DOMA. The exact same thing happened during the Obama administration when it comes to ENDA. Remember all the times we were told by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank that ENDA would be passed before the end of the month? Then it was the end of the next month. Pelosi and Frank were both pushing as hard as they could to get it done but Obama didn’t want to force certain Democrats in the House who were reluctant to go on record in support of anything gay. It was reluctant Democratic members of Congress who prevented the passage on ENDA back when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and you can throw in President Obama who hadn’t yet completed his evolution because God was in the mix.

    There is never going to be a perfect candidate for political office. Obama has certainly been a major disappointment in some areas but overall he has certainly been a lot better than any Republican alternative. I guess that’s the lesser of two evils school of politics. Hillary Clinton is the best hope the Democrats have at the moment to hold onto the White House. That being said, I don’t think we should gang up on her for perceived slights in the past or because we wish she would come out even stronger for equality for gays. Unless something better comes along, Hillary is it and we should support her.

  189. heimaey says:

    I think Terry (I’m a fan FTR) was harping on it too much and not making sense. She should have just asked her right out what she said at the end. It was confusing for Hillary because she was trying to get her to say she was against gay marriage and she never really was. Hillary did not sound wishy washy to me at all. She sounded completely reasonable. Terry can get like this now and then…a bit…pushy… when she thinks she is not getting the answer she wants in her head.

  190. Indigo says:

    Benghazhi! Monica! Equality for gays! See, the good-bad guys are doing her early campaign work for her. By the time of the nomination, she’ll have those issues on replay. Or, maybe she’ll decide that’s too much doggy-poo on the trail and not run. It’ll be one of those and either way, the nags will have already played their hands and there’ll be nothing fresh left to smack Hillary around with. Oh, wait! Whitewater! Whitewater! Whitewater!

  191. discus_sucks_ass says:

    trying to force an interview into a narrative the interviewer wants it to be is dishonest

  192. FLL says:

    I’m in complete agreement with your sentiments on this one. After all, that’s what primaries are for. So vote in the primaries! I’ll join you in doing so.

  193. FLL says:

    Save us from your “lesser of two evils” argument, which is itself horse shit. Every democratic election going back to Ancient Greece has been, by definition, a choice between the lesser of two evils. That’s implicit in the very idea of democratic elections, since no candidate will ever be perfect, even for a single individual voter. Use your “lesser of two evils” argument at the risk of making a fool of yourself because it’s part and parcel of democracy itself.n That having been said, lynchie, I’m sure there are better choices out there than Hillary.

    By the way, please don’t tell me that you’re wearing one of those “None of the Above” buttons. If you are, I’d keep that information under your hat. ;)

  194. jomicur says:

    She certainly would be strong and effective–in the interest of her pals on Wall St.

  195. BeminDC says:

    +10 Much more eloquent than moi.

  196. FLL says:

    Your point would have been very well taken if you had made that point in 2000. Personally, I don’t think being married to Bill Clinton constituted sufficient experience to run for U.S. senator from New York. However, as Get Chutney Love points out, this is now 14 years later, and of course, Hillary has now served as U.S. senator from New York and U.S. secretary of state. I suppose it’s water under the bridge now. I make these observations as one who has never been any particular fan of Hillary.

  197. BeminDC says:

    Can you propose a viable alternative? I’m all ears. I can also say good things about people or at least not trash our front runner (which helps who, exactly?)

  198. DarcyDale says:

    John, I didn’t quite hear it the way you did and think that it might be a generational thing; I think that Hillary was firm and spoke the truth when she said this issue has been evolving for everyone. I know even my 64 year old husband took time to come around and now he is fully supportive of the LGBT movement and thinks the way I do regarding marriage equality and equal rights, etc…. but it was an educational journey for him, just like with Hillary. I think when Hillary said that you look at your neighbors, your children and their friends, co-workers, etc. and realize that the LBGT movement touches their lives in real ways, then you must conclude that they deserve what the rest of us take for granted.

    I think for younger people, it’s a no-brainer, but for the more mature population from a different era, it has been an evolution….and a rapid one at that! I was pleased the way Hillary handled herself with that part of the interview.

    It sounded like Terry was carping just a bit; she was too cute by half…..and this is from one who loves Terry Gross!

  199. BeminDC says:

    Or maybe just not be dicks trashing someone who would be an effective leader?

  200. jomicur says:

    Yeah, holding politicians accountable for their positions and behavior is bad. Sire it is.

  201. jomicur says:

    So you, personally, are not aware of any other democrats who might make good candidates, therefore we should all support Hillary. Got it.

  202. FLL says:

    I have never been any particular fan of Hillary. I think she’s as opportunistic as most politicians Western countries… but conflating her with Vladimir Putin? Putin is a neo-Soviet dictator who does his best to stop free elections. I really don’t see the comparison there. I implore you to tweak your writing style a bit (LOL) so that people will take you more seriously. BeminDC sounds downright offended in his reply below. I’m just amused. Back to freshman-year composition class with you, Nicho!

  203. Senator from New York, Secretary of State, got any other questions?

  204. lynchie says:

    Tell me what has she ever done to prepare for this job other than be married to a serial adulterer.

  205. lynchie says:

    Save us from the lesser of two evils horseshit. They are all bought and paid for. As for being in debt when BillO left the white house.

  206. BeminDC says:

    Only on the Internet . . . Shame.

  207. BeminDC says:

    I don’t agree on the viable piece. And the Supreme Court is way too far on the right already for me to be willing to take any chances. Who you got? Warren? I wish, but not gonna happen. Bernie Sanders, ha. That Montana Governor that I can’t even think of his name?

  208. “what is the alternative?” you speak as if she’s the only democrat in the country. there are a number of viable options.

  209. nicho says:

    Hillary – a strong and effective president. Kind of like Valdimir Putin is strong and effective.

  210. BeminDC says:

    Oh I sure hope this doesn’t turn into a Hillary bashing forum. Is she perfect? Obviously not. Can she win? I think so. What is the alternative? Right wing Talibanegelical freaks.

  211. BeminDC says:

    Guess I’m not seeing that this is a big deal . . . Do I wish the Clintons were better about this in the 1990s, yes. But Terry seemed to go in for about two too many follow ups here.

  212. pricknick says:

    Of course she’s wishy-washy. Name a politician that isn’t. As far as her possibly being a strong and effective president, I strongly disagree. She, like all of her predecessors will swing whatever way the money tells her to. Her recent statement about being broke when her and bubba left the white house is a glaring example. She will carp to all who will listen.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS