• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « Soon to be no PlanetOut? | Main | The woulda coulda shoulda Mitt Romney »

    January 15, 2008

    David Mixner knows the Clintons…

    Posted by: Chris

    Davidmixner … The Clintons are (were?) friends of his. And David Mixner thinks the Clintons are no LBJs and were MIA during the civil rights battles they talk about with such admiration.

    Mixner, the gay "FOB" (Friend of Bill) who was his liaison to gay voters in the early '90s, says he sees a troubling pattern in the Clinton camp of playing the race card, including the whole LBJ-MLK flap:

    [T]he Clintons have taken offense at statements by those who believe this behavior represents a pattern. Of course, one tactic in a campaign is to force an issue out into the public domain, so everyone is discussing it, and then distancing yourself from it. The Clintons also tend to portray themselves as the victims in these situations.

    For me, I will never forget when President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. He expressed to the LGBT community how painful it was for him, noting that he had signed the bill late at night with tears in his eyes. It was all about how hard it was on him and not what the implications were for millions of LGBT Americans. A few weeks later, the ’96 Clinton campaign was running ads all over the South on country western stations bragging about his signing of DOMA.

    In all fairness to them, neither were heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement during the 1960s. Bill Clinton was in grade school during the battles in Little Rock and then later in the decade worked for Senator Fulbright who, while heroic in his opposition to the War in Vietnam, voted against both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Bill. Senator Clinton actively supported Barry Goldwater, a conservative Republican, in his race for President. Goldwater was opposed to all civil rights legislation of that time. So, it is quite possible that they really don't understand the sensitivities and feelings of those who did serve in those historic and important battles.

    Mixner is an John Edwards supporter, but his endorsement was not anti-Clinton.

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e54fe072a38833

    Comments

    1. The Gay Species on Jan 15, 2008 10:24:14 PM:

      Well, of course, Hilary is no LBJ. She supported Barry Goldwater, who, not without significance, disapproved of the 1964 civil rights act. But, so did LBJ, BEFORE he ascended to the presidency. He reversed course. I suspect many have since then, including Hilary. But, for her to call Obama's civil rights credentials into question, because she favored Goldwater and Bill favored DOMA, seems entirely confused, to me. Then again, not if you are a Clinton. She stood by him, he stands by her. So who stands by the rest of us? Al Sharpton?

    1. Andoni on Jan 16, 2008 9:36:34 AM:

      I have some thoughts about the NH primary results that I do not know where to put, so I’ll put them here.

      The various polls (Gallup, USA Today, etc) are in the process of re interviewing all the SAME people from their pre-election polling in NH to see what went wrong. (Also, today, NH is beginning the several week process of the recount Kucinich requested.)

      Here is what I believe the polls will find when they re-interview the people:

      The fast moving pre-election polls actually influenced and drove the voters’ decisions. After months of steady state Clinton being ahead by 20, the polls were in motion after Iowa and it looked like a runaway train for Obama. The numbers kept rising and never reached a new “steady state.” As a result the public did not know what the new REAL numbers were (real thoughts of the electorate) so the voters did an “oversteering” or an “over-correction.”

      I would bet there are two groups that participated in the “oversteering” or over correcting – those that who wanted to vote for Obama but had McCain as their second choice and those who didn’t want to see Hillary go down in flames as a woman, but actually preferred Obama.

      Because it looked like Obama was going to win big, the first group figured that Obama certainly didn’t need their vote, so they decided to help McCain. The second group had Hillary’s dignity in mind, and figured if they switched to Hillary, it wouldn’t hurt Barack because he was going to win anyway, and it would help Hillary dodge total humiliation.

      The way to test this theory is to ask each voter if they had known what the final result of the voting was going to be, would they have still voted the same way? In other words, did the result turn out the way they wanted it too, or did they get tripped up by the fast moving numbers that never reached “steady state” and caused them to make a bad decision?

      The whole basis for this “oversteering” theory is that there was not enough time for the new poll numbers to reach a steady state so that all the voters knew the most current thinking of the electorate, so they could act accordingly. If the election had been a week later so that the voters then saw what was really happening, the electorate might have had to time to adjust, especially if they were the in the group with secondary motives.

      The key question is in re interviewing the same people who were interviewed before the election, they have to be asked the simple question of if the voter had known the eventual outcome of the NH primary, would they have voted the same way? That question will either validate my theory or make it go down in flames.

      It’s sort of like that theory in physics, that when you are measuring something, the act of measuring, in itself serves to distort the results.

      And yes, I have an engineering background.

    1. Michael Bedwell on Jan 16, 2008 1:20:02 PM:

      Cherry picking history for your own partisan ends is dangerous when others have also seen the whole orchard. HARVEY MILK WAS A GOLDWATER SUPPORTER, too! So the fuck what? Patterns? Oh, yes, I see a pattern in Mixner's still SO choking on what he sees as a betrayal by the Clintons over gays in the military that he'll twist, distort, and exagggerate anything to demonize them. Sort of a morbidly obese version of Citizen Crain. Despite his self-admitted history of lying [remember the one, which also brought tears to Clinton's eyes, about how he was emotionally crushed because the nonexistent woman he was engaged to be married to had been killed in a car crash? Or was it the one about how he was dying of cancer he didn't have?], Mixner deserves a great deal of credit for his many contributions to the movement. But has he ever taken responsibility for his own egocentric failures during the DADT debacle? Michelangelo Signorile documented in "Queer in America" how a straight, naive Bill Clinton, with no experience in fighting Congress, was left spinning in the Religious Right driven wind in 1993 while HRC and a brand new group Mixner had formed fought over who should be Queen of that hop?

      Sen. Obama, for his part, has shown far more class:

      ""You have seen a tone on the Democrat[ic] side of the campaign that has been unfortunate. I want to stipulate a couple of things. I may disagree with Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. They are good people. They are patriots....I don't want the campaign at this stage to degenerate to so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why we are doing this. Obama said he wants to send 'a strong signal to my own supporters' that let’s try to focus on the work that needs to get done. If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it....Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically been on the right side of civil rights issues. They care about the African American community.... That is something I am convinced of. I want Americans to know that is my assessment."

    1. Monster Beats Sale on Nov 30, 2011 1:40:28 AM:

      That is something I am convinced of. I want Americans to know that is my assessment."

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad