Hillary for president - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

NOVEMBER 23, 2009


Login or create a new account ?

MORE INFO

Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade and can be reached at knaff@washblade.com.

MOST VIEWED

Hillary for president
Gay voters are right to feel reluctant about Clinton’s bid, but she represents best chance to rid White House of GOP’s anti-gay agenda

HOME > VIEWPOINT > EDITORIAL

Dec 21, 2007 | By: KEVIN NAFF | COMMENTS

continued...

touch — from Mike Huckabee’s shockingly ignorant remarks about “isolating” AIDS patients to Rudy Giuliani’s suddenly nuanced positions on gay rights.

Gay Americans cannot afford another four years of a Republican administration in the White House. Attacking gays and opposing even the most benign forms of incremental rights advances is now part of the GOP playbook, no matter the nominee. Bush has helped block ENDA and the hate crimes bill via veto threats. He has attacked our relationships in his State of the Union address, cruelly pushing for a federal ban on same-sex marriage. He — along with all the Republican candidates for president — supports the antiquated and reckless “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Many supporters of independent candidates argue that there is no longer a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. But on gay issues, that is simply not the case.

As gay Rep. Barney Frank told the Blade last summer, “all the Democrats are very good and all the Republicans are very terrible.” For sure, gay Americans will be vastly better served by any of the Democrats now in the running than any of the Republicans.

But in the end, Hillary Rodham Clinton stands the best chance of sending the Republicans into eight years of a well-deserved political wilderness. She’s smart, tenacious, hard working and willing to cede the spotlight in the interest of bipartisan cooperation. She has marched in our Pride parades, promised unprecedented access to her administration and backed nearly all of our issues.

Clinton has earned the support of gay voters in 2008.

COMMENTS

Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

jeri .

0

i can't believe you are endorsing hillary. your own description of her represents that she is an extension of her husband, and that her actions - like his - are not trustworthy. in some things, character is EVERYTHING. where were her words of wisdom and her leadership during the ENDA debacle or with the mathew shepherd act? hillary is better at talking about being a leader than she is at acting like a leader. IMHO, she is "the consumate politician" - which is the OPPOSITE of a compliment, somewhere between a thief and liar.

Posted 12/21/07 - 9:54 AM

shandwerk
Lafayette, La

0

I have to disagree with your thesis as it is contrary to all of the national polls right now. If, as you claim, you desire is to rid the white house of the republicans than John Edwards is the most viable according to every poll I have seen with head to head match ups with each and every republican candidate. Also, I am tired of the "baby steps" approach that Clinton consistently advocates. DADT was wrong headed as was DOMA. It is time to stop electing apologists and demand equality.

Posted 12/21/07 - 11:52 AM

jeri .

0

oooh, i like those words! demand, and equality! they are even better when they are said together!

Posted 12/21/07 - 1:39 PM

JMMBC

0

As Joe Solmonese, President of HRC, says, "Hillary is not only a great leader, but an even better friend." She is a strategic partner for the gay community. When the FMA was going down, she summoned gay leaders to the Hill to try to stratergize about how to defeat it. If you want big bang politics, you might have to look elsewhere. But, look up the history of DADT -- we are better off today with it than we were without it. Gays were being prosecuted and questioned then. We forget too easily

Posted 12/22/07 - 12:45 AM

KScottB

0

Hillary's Record: for the war, for DOMA, for DADT. As recently as 2004 hubby Bill was telling Kerry to play the anti-gay card. Now favors only partial repeal of DOMA. This duo has shown again and again that when push comes to shove it's the gays that get pushed off the Clinton bus. Obama: Against the war, Agn DOMA, for full DOMA repeal now, would legally give all 1,200 federal rights and benefits to gay civil unioned couples.

Posted 12/22/07 - 5:35 AM

Bill Jacobs
Las Vegas, Nv

0

After reading your front page article. Richardson clearly has the best record of achievement on LGBT issues-the other candidates are good at talking about them. But then I read Neff's editorial and learn that The Blade endorses Hillary? Did you even read Lou Chibarro's interview? And do you really think Clinton is more electable? I've never heard Hillary have the guts to criticize Barney Frank's exclusion of gender identity like Bill Richardson did. And Richardson gets no mention for that? Hmm.

Posted 12/22/07 - 9:14 AM

ErikDC
Bowie, Md

0

Kevin, electing another legacy President would be the mistake. The Bush and Clinton families have monopolized our government for long enough. Such stagnation and familial succession is a grave threat to our democracy.

Posted 12/22/07 - 11:31 AM

MikeinDC

0

I think this was a wonderful endorsement. For her sheer level of comfort with LGBT folk, Hillary wins hands down. Moreover, Obama's insistence on McClurkin's participation in a South Carolina rally was the death knell for any support I might have given him; I will skip the top of the ticket in the General Election if he is our nominee. Edwards's reassurance that his daughter is more open to us than he is was hardly reassuring. No, Hillary definitely is the right one for us. Congratulations!

Posted 12/22/07 - 12:18 PM

Don George
Atlanta, Ga

0

Kevin, your editorial sounds like it was written by the Clinton team. It repeats the Clinton talking points perfectly. You didn't convince me. You spent a lot of time comparing George Bush to Clinton. Your reference point should have been, it has to be a Democrat, so let's compare Democrats. In that case, both Edwards and Obama do better than she does in national polls as to who can win in Nov. 08 ---- which is what really counts ---- otherwise we get a Republican and we're back to 0.

Posted 12/22/07 - 2:30 PM

Steve Charing
Clarksville, Md

0

First, Bill Clinton didn't "embrace" DADT. It was shoved down his throat by Congress and the Joint Chiefs as he had accumulated no political capital to make his executive order stick. Second, electability is not so much dependent on experience as likeability. Look atthe last 4 presidential elections: Clinton-Bush, Clinton-Dole, Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry. Although many factors affected the results, in each election, the more experienced person was defeated by the more likeable. Dems need a win.

Posted 12/22/07 - 3:11 PM

kdogg36
Hanove, Md

0

Steve: If Congress is trying to shove something down a president's throat that he truly opposes, the Constitution provides him a method of communicating this clearly to the world. If he signs the bill, it is fully appropriate to hold him responsible for it. He signed DADT, and he positively supported DOMA (as he made clear in an Advocate article at the time).

Posted 12/22/07 - 3:55 PM

Steve Charing
Clarksville, Md

0

kdogg36: Yes, he is responsible for signing DADT into law. I'm not questioning that. I'm saying he didn't embrace it as if it was something he wanted.

Posted 12/22/07 - 3:58 PM

Ye Olde Fart
Phoenix

0

You may be right about Hillary. But given her husbands record while in the White House I have my doubts.

Posted 12/22/07 - 5:49 PM

Don George
Atlanta, Ga

0

Bill also made "signing statements" modifying legislation when he signed a bill, although not nearly as many as Bush. My question is simple: Did Bill Clinton make a signing statement that would have diminished or nullified either DADT or DOMA? To the best of my knowledge he did not. Whether signing statements are legal or not is not known, but if Bill did not believe in what he was signing, he could have at least reduced their effect with signing statements. Instead he embraced both. QED

Posted 12/23/07 - 9:41 AM

Don George
Atlanta, Ga

0

The LGBT community cannot afford to have a Republican win in 08. With that said everything else is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who has the most experience, who supports repealing all of DOMA vs Section 3. The name of the game is winning and I don't think Hillary can do that when she starts out with 49% negatives. Your editorial would have served the community better if you made the sole criterion WHO CAN WIN. Everything else is irrelevant. If we lose, we're dead!

Posted 12/23/07 - 10:00 AM

TXWhtBoy

0

"Former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Bill Richardson favor repealing all of DOMA, while Clinton has taken the more cautious approach of advocating a repeal only of Section 3.." That comment in itself negates any reason Gay and Lesbian voters would have to support Ms. Clinton. John Edwards is the obvious choice. His SPOUSE wants full equality. Edwards even admitted during the debates that his opinion is evolving. Clinton has a bad track record and has earned nothing from us.

Posted 12/24/07 - 7:42 PM

beergoggles

0

Lets see: Edwards is for repealing DOMA and supports the UAFA - rest of their positions are the same. Obama is for repealing DOMA and things the UAFA for gays will make all the gays liars and lawbreakers. Clinton won't repeal all of DOMA, is against the UAFA. Not much of a choice there, Edwards is pick one, Obama is pick 2, Hillary is pick 3 based on the equal rights laws they support. And they are all leagues ahead of Republicans.

Posted 12/24/07 - 8:32 PM

Gay and a GOP

0

Yet again Kevin is willing to sell any gay to any Democrat for the lowest return on investment available. Until gays collectively stand up and hold leaders accountable across all fields, this is the best we can ever expect.

Posted 12/27/07 - 11:41 AM

timinchicago
chicago, Il

0

DOMA DOMA DOMA. they (and you admit, they are one in the same) used it for a reelection tool! That's all i need to know. How can you trust them? As for the tired "experience" case you make. Same old conventions, same old results. So provincial and narrow is your perspective. see: http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157 AND http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157 and http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/12/blade-editor-en.html#comments

Posted 12/27/07 - 4:01 PM

Peter Yacobellis

0

In 2004 with Hillary as my Senator in New York I spent a semester as a college intern in her communications office. During a one-on-one conversation I had with her about the struggle young LGBT people had with coming out and dealing with un-supportive families and hostile churches, she was quick to remind me about the horrific teen suicide rates among gay teens particularly. She had deep knowledge and true sense of compassion. It gave me chills. She cares and she's going to fix this.

Posted 12/29/07 - 12:35 PM