Why Hillary's answer today is nothing to freak out about

[mtnsnake]

General Pace was the only asshole in this story, not Hillary. Everyone, including so many Democrats, said Pace should have kept his personal opinions to himself.

So, the same holds true for Hillary Clinton. She, too, should keep that kind of personal opinion to herself, and she did.

Anyone who questions Hillary's sincerity when it comes to gay rights either doesn't know her or doesn't want to get to know her. Her intentions were good. Was her answer perfect? No, but it sure wasn't anything to freak out about. By so many of the reactions here, one would have thought she answered "yes".

[Colobo]

1. Edwards was asked by Wolf

if he taught homosexuality was inmoral. He said no.

See? That's the correct answer to the question.

[donco6]

5. Pretty simple, no?

I'm not freaking out at all. It only confirms my original opinion of her: Worthless, forked tongue toady.

[AtomicKitten]

7. I don't think he should have rewarded the MSM with an answer

.... to an inappropriate question.

Such are differences of opinion. It's all subjective.

[Cha]

13. Good for John Edwards!

It's not a tough question. Somebody should ask her if it's "immoral" to prolong the War On Iraq when it was started on the bushitlies. Would she leave that for others to conclude, too?

[mtnsnake]

35. As it turns out, Edwards didn't give a "no" answer either

according to the update you gave in your other thread just a while ago where you said yourself he answered it a bit differently than what you thought.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I think she was right to refuse to answer that stupid question.

Just because Pace was a dumbass and passed judgment on "homosexual acts" - he was actually more specific than is being reported in the MSM - Hillary didn't fall into the trap of rewarding the MSM with an answer to a question that should never have been asked.

Both a yes or no answer would have been inappropriate, and I for one don't want politicians commenting on morality. Jeez, next thing they will be trying to legislate it.

No siree Bob, me thinks this was just another excuse to hate her. Surely there must be plenty of other material to stoke the fire; this not so much.

[xchrom]

6. you fall for the logic of the right wing.

homosexuals have been battling this one question for eons and all you can say is that you don't want someone commenting about morality.

it's not ABOUT MORALITY and it's offensive for you to put it that way.

homosexuality is not a disease, homosexuality is not immoral -- nor is homosexual sex immoral.

with friends like you and hil -- who needs enemies?

[AtomicKitten]

8. No, the RW would have demanded a yes/no answer

... to try to hamstring the Democrats, just like you are.

I think she was right to not answer an inappropriate question, you disagree. I guess you are choosing to overlook her very next comment complimenting the gay men and women that serve in the military that really mitigates her refusal to answer the question, convenient but purposefully overlooking the very clear context of her remark.

Funny, whatever she said would have been construed as pandering or just flat-out wrong, so the discussion here at DU is really kind of pointless in that regard.

On edit:

it's not ABOUT MORALITY and it's offensive for you to put it that way.

The QUESTION asked was about MORALITY --- I didn't put it ANY way. Save your righteous indignation for where it actually applies.

[donco6]

10. Why would "no" have "hamstrung" the Dems? eom

[AtomicKitten]

11. answering yes or no would have fallen into the trap

.... of answering an inappropriate question - either answer would hamstring the Dems by forcing them to comment on MORALITY which is entirely inappropriate.

My only criticism is that she should have come out and said it was an inappropriate question when she had the opportunity.

[donco6]

12. Is homosexuality immoral?

Correct answer: No.

Incorrect answer: anything else.

[AtomicKitten]

14. again, you are trying to impose your opinion

.... on her response .... Neither she nor I are arguing that.

My point is it was an inappropriate question to ask. If you feel it was detrimental to the cause by not answering the way you wanted, that's one thing, but I think it's more important for the Dems to put the MSM in its place and now allow them to force the Democrats to make the same dumbass mistake Pace did, i.e., commenting on morality.

In a political sense, she did the right thing. The MSM are a bunch of bitchy Heathers that love nothing more than putting the Dems on the spot. I say this on behalf of all the candidates. I followed and wrote a poltical column on the hatchet-job they did on Gore through his presidential run, and I for one am pleased when the candidates don't allow the MSM to call the shots. Inviting them to comment on morality is inappropriate, and I'm sorry that her glowing comments on the gays serving in the military weren't enough to assuage your dislike for her. I think the principle she did serve, however, was a bigger and more important point to make. You disagree. Such is life and politics.

[donco6]

16. Is brown hair immoral?

It's the same question. Jeebus. She can dance around it all she wants.

[tsuki]

31. I agree with you. How does one KNOW. It is really a matter of

belief. To KNOW is to set yourself as an equal to God. You are allowed to make judgements because you KNOW. That is blasphemy. It is a matter of belief.

[AtomicKitten]

33. exactly

I have a problem with ANYBODY pontificating about morality. It's entirely subjective and is as individual and personal as spirituality. Nobody has the right to dictate what it means unequivocally. It has been used as a conduit of hate and should be taken out of the mouths of leaders entirely and relegated to the minds and hearts of each individual where it belongs.

[donco6]

53. You can relax with the spin now.

Hillary released a new statement:

To her credit, Clinton has issued the following statement:

I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask don’t tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

25. Don't you think that the fight is going to be won

on issues of constitutionality and basic human rights rather than on personal determinations of morality?

I think that's all AK was saying. This is one poster who definitely isn't a bigot. I know they exist, I've read enough of their crap, but honestly, she's not one of them.

[AtomicKitten]

32. This issue is much, much bigger than the narrow view some give it.

HRC reinforced her position with the sentence immediately after the one she is being crucified for here. She did precisely the right thing and didn't reward the MSM with an answer to an inappropriate question. This is a bigger human rights issue that isn't going to be won in the press, and HRC is savvy enough to know the MSM is playing their stupid reindeer games with the candidates. I do AIDS volunteer work here in SF and talked to a bunch of people here today, and they all agree HRC was smart. Those slamming her here at DU hate her anyway; don't let the righteous outrage fool you. Politics is a chess game and most folks can see several moves down the line.

[donco6]

41. I didn't hate her before.

And I don't really "hate" her now, but I think her answer stunk. Sorry.

[AtomicKitten]

42. that's cool

You are entitled to your opinion.

[Cameron27]

44. When human rights issues

are argued on the basis of morality, the legal significance can get lost in a gray area. Blood never flows faster or deeper than when very moral people of faith battle other very moral people of faith.

I think that was Clinton's intention with her statement; putting it in the correct framework. Hillary's going to be bashed around here no matter what she says or does, she just can't win.

BTW, good on you for doing volunteer AIDS work!

[mtnsnake]

23. Amen, and yes, this is just another excuse to hate her

She could've answered no, and they still would have found a way to villify her for it here.

Hillary: "No, I do not think it's immoral."

3/4 of DU: "She only said no because she's campaigning for president, the hypocritical witch!"

[zulchzulu]

39. I completely agree... it is a stupid question hellbent on being distorted...

While I prefer what Senator Warner said by just coming out and saying being gay is not immoral, I also understand that he's not running for President.

The answers that both Senators Clinton and Obama said were fine by me. Their records obviously reflect being allies to the gay community. That's what counts. I liked how Obama questioned the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy as well.

If either Senator didn't have a strong record supporting the LGBT community, you might ask them the "moral" question...otherwise, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

[AtomicKitten]

40. like Kerry2008 pointed out -- it's gotcha politics

which makes my skin crawl --- and I'm THRILLED Obama didn't answer either
of note, both their campaigns released statements in support of gays in the military
they are SO SMART to not let the MSM get away with it
funny how some people here are outraged --- I am happy the MSM got some comeuppance

[EndElectoral]

3. What do you mean she should keep her personal opinion to herself? Jesus, it's important to people

where she stands and her honesty.

Some people will defend her no matter what she does.

[mtnsnake]

24. Cuz that's what all our own Dems were saying that Pace or anyone else should have done

Our own strategists on the news yesterday were saying how Pace or anyone else in a position of power should not inflict their own opinions over the people they influence while they're in power or in office.

[Wickerman]

4. She didn't say no

In politics, unlike other areas of life, that might as well be Yes.

I am so tired of pols who do not want to take a stand and by so not taking that stand disenfranchise an entire population. I've been ambivalent about Hillary for a long time - this is another nail in the coffin. Should she receive the nomination I will of course support her but she has moved down my list for primary considerations.

[DemKR]

9. Gays for Hillary...Proud member nt

[Clintonista2]

29. Same. NT

[nosmokes]

17. y'all know the questions get tougher from here right? this bullshit

equivocating that she does that DLC hacks are so fond of is gonna get real old way before election time. and i'll guarantee ya if the dems put up another candidate that won't answer a forthright question w/ a forthright reply ain't gonna win. just consider her a non-binding candidate.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Because it isn't a matter of opinion.

Here is the problem here, "She, too, should keep that kind of personal opinion to herself, and she did."

Whether Homosexuals are "immoral" isn't any more a matter of personal opinion than whether Jews are cheap. If you have to pause to answer that question, there is something seriously wrong with the way you think.

The answer, which Clinton managed to miss, was a quick, unequivocal, "of course not".. No hesitation, no thought... :"OF COURSE NOT!"

Well, in the end, this didn't change my opinion of her... I wasn't going to vote for her before, and I am not going to after... just another thing to add to her resume of stupidity.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Time travel back to 1933: Are Jews the vermint of humanity?

As a Jew I would expect the candidate to say that not only Jews were not vermint, but that the question itself was reflective of racism and intolerance and had no place in a free and democratic society.

How would anyone that is not an anti-Semite react to an answer that "it was a matter of personal opinion," and leave it at that?

That's how I feel about Hillary's answer to the question!

[A Simple Game]

38. Whether something is immoral or not is not a personal opinion?

Then what is it? I suppose it could and often is an opinion that you are told to use by your religion, fine. But you should never be given an opinion to use by your government or your elected representatives. The issue was not if it was illegal, it was if it was immoral. They can sometimes be the same, but this time there is a very significant difference.

Is Homosexuality immoral? I don't think so. Are Jews cheap, I don't think so, but I would bet some are. I know people that would not hesitate to say yes to each question. Are they right? They think so and it matters very little to them what you or I think about it.

Go to many of the middle eastern countries and ask if homosexuality is immoral. Most of your answers will be yes. Are they right? Their laws say they are.

Is it immoral here? the answer depends upon who you ask, but our laws say no, and that is all that matters.

"Well, in the end, this didn't change my opinion of her" tells me that nothing she said would make a difference with you, and wouldn't for a lot of people. So it seems to me that she did the right thing. What if she had said it doesn't matter how I or anyone else feel about it morally, because I am and always will be for equal right for homosexuals because they are guaranteed equal rights by the constitution? Would that have satisfied you?

[LeftCoast]

19. I was very disapointed by her answer. John Warner, a freakin' republican said it much better.

I felt her answer was a cop-out.

[David Zephyr]

20. Worse than a cop-out, she showed her colors.

I'm glad she did it. Now gays and lesbians can see her for the person she truly is.

[sendero]

21. HRC..

... never takes a definite position on anything remotely controversial. Why would anyone expect her to change today.

HRC is about HRC. Everyone and everything else is secondary to her attaining her rightful position as fearless leader. Get it?

[MGKrebs]

34. You're going to have to get this info to

Planned Parenhood, NARAL, ACLU, HRC, NAACP, NEA, Wilderness Coalition, NOW, SEIU, UAW, PFAW, WAND, the Secular Coalition, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, because they all seem to think she stands for somthing. And that's just the positive ones. You might contact the NRA too, because they definitely think she takes a stand on some gun control issues.

[MGKrebs]

22. It's a classic trap.

I don't think anybody believes that HC thinks homosexuality is immoral, so this is really about the symbolism and the language, not the belief. And it's a classic trap. Many religious people would consider "yes" the correct answer, while most everybody else would insist on "no", so for a politician, there is no answer that won't do some damage, even a "waffle" answer.

My question is, did Edwards hurt his chances of winning when he answered the way he did?

[mtnsnake]

26. Great post and a good question

My question is, did Edwards hurt his chances of winning when he answered the way he did?

Other than the first poster saying Edwards told Wolf "no", I didn't hear him answer it myself, so I don't know the context of how he did it. Usually he handles himself very well, so I'd be surprised if he did anything to hurt his chances. I'd like to read the text of his answer to Wolf to see how the question was asked and if it was asked in the same manner as how it was asked to Hillary.

The only wrong answer would have been "yes".

Anyway, thanks for the other part of your post, too. You nailed it.

[Colobo]

28. I'll try to find the text version

It was in "The Situation Room", yesterday.

[Colobo]

27. No, not at all

[MGKrebs]

30. Why not? Aren't there a lot of religious people who will be looking

for a candidate who validates their own morality? Can or will those people overlook their morality and vote for Edwards anyway if they like him otherwise? On the other hand, we see that some will condemn Clinton, not for having the wrong belief, but for not articulating that belief clearly at this moment, despite years of stellar support.

Is Edwards going to renounce any support from people who are not willing to make the same statement he did? No? He can take support from those who DO think homosexuality is immoral, but Clinton shouldn't get any support becasue she didn't answer a question today in as few words as possible, even though there is no doubt about her belief?

I guess one could look at it this way: Both Edwards and Clinton do not think homosexuality is immoral. Edwards is evidently willing to try to convince enough people who believe otherwise that they are wrong, whereas Clinton apparently, for the moment, chooses to give them a way to vote Dem without overtly violating their own morals.

I suspect Clinton will have more to say about this, but of course, for some, it's too late. She has to get it right the first time, otherwise, it's just "triangulating".

[IndianaGreen]

36. Like her husband, Hillary will betray LGBTs rights on the altar of political expediency

John Edwards had a pretty straightforward answer when he was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if homosexuals were immoral. Edwards replied "No!"

The LGBT community can ill-afford to wait for Her Highness Hillary to finish her "evolving" on LGBT rights.

Kudos to Edwards and Wes Clark!

[donco6]

43. I agree.

There is no "gotcha" here. Unless you don't want to have yourself on the record as saying homosexuality isn't immoral. Obama and Edwards and Clark have no problem saying, "no." What the fuck is the matter with Hillary?

[AtomicKitten]

45. *

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3162531

[mtnsnake]

46. That is one big fat lie, but why am I not surprised...

John Edwards had a pretty straightforward answer when he was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if homosexuals were immoral. Edwards replied "No!"

No such thing happened. How the heck do you sleeep at night?

You've never gotten it right before and you didn't get it right again this time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3162436

Read the transcript from that link and show me where Edwards replied "No!"

You won't be able to show me because Edwards said no such thing. You never stop, do you.

[Tellurian]

47. Indiana Green also lied about being a Veteran...

not in the usual sense... Peace Marches...don't count..

This group has no integrity. I have no idea why we even converse with the malcontents.

[Forkboy]

49. You mean acting like you're vet,then being forced to admit you aren't one?

And then hiding behind a dead relative to score points in an online debate?

Would that be the kind of integrity you're talking about?

[Cameron27]

51. Veteran = peace marcher?

Damn if that were the case, I could collect benefits.

[loyalsister]

48. If that is your argument

She should have said that it is a matter of personal understanding that should not be politicized. But she did not. She left it in the political arena for her own political gain. She wanted to gain some respect from bigots on the fence.
I have seen this in other contexts.
There are times when candidates try to single out the perfect normal people in the middle to the exclusion of people whose participation is reduced (poverty, race, disability, etc). It is a position that smacks of bigotry.

[Forkboy]

50. Freaking out over every nuance is what political junkies do.

Out in the real world people were talking about the weather and getting flea collars for their pets.Here on DU we'll have forty threads if a candidate wears mismatching socks one day.

[Cameron27]

52. That's so true lol,

and you made me laugh so :pals: for you.