Agreed. I have no reason to believe the Clintons harbor any particular homophobic feelings but political expediency trumps everything else.
But I’ll still take Hillary over the actively anti-gay Republicans.
That about sums it up for me. Hillary is a loathsome individual but less so, in varying degrees, than her likely GOP opponents.
I think the biggest issue isn’t anything to do with Hillary or her gay rights record per se, but rather that in the minds of a large part of the population, the gay rights war was resolved with the summer’s Supreme Court decision. (not that it really was, but that’s what a lot of people seem to feel)
Campaigning with gay rights as a large plank in the platform is campaigning on past glories and won’t be perceived as looking forward.
The background atmosphere is still there without the nominees having to say anything about it. The Dems have the image of being for human rights and basic decency, while the Reps have the image of supporting whatever the evangelicals are loudest about. Gay rights in general or SSM in particular aren’t the cornerstones of anything, but the attitudes they represent certainly are.
Because the thread is about Hillary Clinton. If she gets the nomination, she won’t be running against Bernie Sanders.
It’s not a dead issue. Both sides are campaigning for who will get to nominate the next few Supreme Court justices.
Why should she care about the gay vote? It’s not a major factor. Very few heteros vote based on gay rights either. Most gays are going to vote for a Democrat, even one with Hillary’s record, over a Republican. Gays who vote Republican aren’t going to be convinced to vote for Hillary unless the Republican nominee turns out to be really really anti-gay or says something really stupid. I don’t see it as a factor. Gay marriage is settled and it’s not a campaign issue any more, at least not for gay voters.
This idea is the poster child for revisionist history.
There may be a smidgen of truth in it, but I sincerely doubt that a Southern heterosexual born in the mid-40s was primarily or even seriously concerned with the long-term rights and welfare of gay people. Hillary is much the same: she was not initially concerned with the issue, because she grew up thinking of gay people, when she thought of them at all, as a deviant minority.
I don’t blame the Clintons for where they came from, and I give H. Clinton credit for learning and altering her views. There is no way, though, that I or anyone who remembers the 1990s will accept that she has been a voice for gay rights all along, and her record does not compare favorably with Sanders’s.
Just to nitpick: SSM is not the only current gay-related battle. The various “religious freedom” initiatives around the country are very much live and gays can still be fired, evicted or otherwise discriminated against in at least half the states with no recourse or protections. Odds are good that there will be more cases making their way to the Supremes in the next few years, and having a President - and potentially a Supreme Court - more favorably disposed to anti-discrimination positions will be key.
Yes, that’s a great point. I guess that’s one salient issue that gays - and others - may care about enough to make a difference in the campaign, one either side.
On the other hand, the fact that an increasingly majority of Americans are in favor of SSM and that gay rights support overall is likewise growing, particularly in younger voters, may mean that supporting gay rights is now politically expedient in a way that it wasn’t even close to being in the 1990s. So enlightened self-interest may work for the greater good in the case of Clinton.
Plenty of people who aren’t themselves the victims of discrimination care about equal rights for people who are victims of it.
Kenyan Usurper, don’t you know.
We all saw her campaign announcement video. Hillary will gladly and shamelessly pander to the gay community. It’s another demographic she can exploit.
Hillary didn’t receive any money from Saudi Arabia. If she had, she should have been prosecuted since it’s illegal for candidates to take money from foreign sources.
But isn’t exploiting demographics something that ALL American politicians do? Things like gerrymandering and the kerfuffle about IDs in Alabama examples of exploiting demographics in an attempt for the Republicans to come out ahead at the polls?
I’m not trying to say “well, these guys do it, so it’s okay if our side does, too.” We’re all aware of your disdain for Clinton and all things Democratic. But to ignore the fact that your side engages in the same behavior that you’re criticizing her for doing borders on hypocritical.
The “Hilary Clinton for President Campaign” can’t take money from foreign sources. In previous years the Clinton Foundation has received donations from all kinds of places, including the government of Saudi Arabia.
He signed DOMA because it would have passed over his veto, and because it was a month before the election, and he didn’t want to paint him as pro-gay, which would have cost him votes.
And what does that have to do with Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign? The Clinton Foundation is a non-profit charity that accepts donations and spends money on third world development. It’s not transferring money over to Hillary Clinton’s political campaign.
Well, pandering to people who want freedom and equality is of a higher moral character than pandering to bigots and racists, at least.