• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « Gays marry in Greece; mayor in trouble | Main | Calif. high court refuses delay »

    June 04, 2008

    Raise the Titanic! cont'd: The monstrous Clinton ego and its wake

    Posted by: Kevin

    Raise_the_titanicSo, as the Clintons do their worst to continue shitting all over the historic nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States, I ask all you gay Democrats out there:

    Do you GET it, now?  Do you UNDERSTAND what this pair has always been made of, since the days of Arkansas?

    They say it's about you, and they mean it's about them.

    They said way back it was about us -- the gay community -- but it was always about them.  They promised change, and they delivered "don't ask, don't tell."  They promised to "fight until hell freezes over, and then fight on the ice" for our rights, and they delivered the Defense of Marriage Act and the HIV visa ban codified into law.  In every case, it was about their priorities, i.e. them.  I always thought it was poetic that Bill Clinton made his historic crocodile-tear speech in Los Angeles in 1991 ("I have a vision of America, and you're a part of it") at a fundraiser.  History tells us that this basically said it all about what the Clintons had to offer.

    At least Hillary didn't have the charms of her wily husband.  She never really hid her unease for the gay community, or her lack of interest in our issues.  That's been evident since her 2000 Senate campaign.  But now it should be clear to everyone that the Clintons were at best really good liars.  Their worst is about to show itself, I'm afraid.  Because even though the world knew that this primary election was over months ago, and that she couldn't win it, now it's clear that she only kept running in order to amass enough support to wound Barack Obama as much as she could and step all over the significance of his victory.

    Last night she talked about fighting to make sure the 18 million people who voted for her are "respected and heard."  Huh??  Exactly what about her positions and Obama's positions are so divergent that she can claim some sort of insurgency status now?  What exactly do they need to be heard about?  The fact is, Obama was the insurgent and she was the establishment at the beginning of this whole thing.  And she simply needs to make her lies stick in order to change that reality and cling ferociously to the snapping lifelines at the water's surface and, at some point, win the day.  Since no one thinks she is certifiably insane, that must mean 2012 or 2016.  And that means she wants Obama to lose this election, or be a failed president.

    And let's not forget, both Clintons played the race card in this election campaign more than once, and now Hillary seems to claim she's the voice of white, lower-class Democratic voters, and of white women especially.  God knows you couldn't see that coming in January.  So what, again, needs to be "heard and respected" by the black nominee?  All I can say is that in her selfish and incredibly galling reach for power, Hillary Clinton is willing to sink to the level of Pat Buchanan, but with none of the convictions.  That's pretty low.

    I say to my gay Democratic friends who were so deluded during the messianic Clinton years in Washington simply this: we told you so.  Look at the Clintons now, and see what we all saw the whole time.



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Double T on Jun 4, 2008 12:32:29 PM:

      I'll meet you half way. I make no comment about the Bill Clinton years.

      As for Hillary. She is amazing. If she does not get her way, she's going to take the whole party down with her. Did you see her speech? "What do I want", could she be any clearer. This woman is f#cking nuts.

      It was interesting that the press picked up on the time and location. Not a basement, A SUB-BASEMENT of this NY college. The crowd had to pass thru security and were down there for a considerable amount of time.

      No cell phone or blackberry service down there. Her supporters down in the bunker were clueless that Obama locked up the nomination.

      It reminded me of those movies about Hitler in his final days. Him and all his loyalists underground plotting how great things are going to be are they defeat the Russians.

      OK……bring out the Kool-Aid.

    1. Double T on Jun 4, 2008 12:46:23 PM:

      $5 bucks(any takers on this wager?) says she's exploring the option of running as an independent if she's doesn't get the VP spot.

      GOD HELP Obama if she's his VP. She will never sit there quietly in the role of second banana.

    1. Colin on Jun 4, 2008 1:08:30 PM:

      Chris, I don't know many gay dems who put Bill Clinton on a messianic pedestal. There are a few sure. Most Dems I know think that Bill Clinton did a good job at keeping the country on track and successful. Sure, there were gay low points (DOMA, DADT, HIV Travel Ban, etc), but there were also gay high points (gay appointees, pro-gay executive order, increased AIDS Funding).

      You and Andrew Sullivan need to take a chill pill with your I-told-you-the-Clintons-are-bad-news rants. Yes, yes, we get that the woman is a megalomaniac, but throwing it in our faces doesn't get us anywhere. :)

      Colin in Fort Lauderdale

    1. Colin on Jun 4, 2008 1:10:05 PM:

      Sorry, I see that it was Kevin that posted, and not Chris. Who's blog is this anyway? :)

    1. Kevin on Jun 4, 2008 1:24:00 PM:

      Colin: OK - I promise to not rub your face in it ever again. You can see what I mean well enough. (Oh and by the way, check your facts on AIDS funding. Every single Clinton domestic AIDS budget from 1994 onward was a travesty (sometimes flat-funding access to medicines through Ryan White), and the Congress raised funding far above the Clinton budget requests. By hundreds of millions of dollars in some years. And AIDS in Africa was a great big nothing in the Clinton budgets for two terms. That leaves an executive order (good!) and a bunch of hacks in jobs. Not much to brag about. But alas, we part friends on this one. :)

      TT: Well said.

    1. BB on Jun 4, 2008 2:14:09 PM:

      I'm not a fan of the Clintons, but I'm so tired of people like you who are trying to degrade the gay community, at every turn, who put their hope in the Democratic Party. Bush PROPOSED the marriage amendment. He RAN on it. Clinton PROPOSED the end of discrimination in the military, and got "don't ask, don't tell". The Generals and the Republican Party went ballistic. People like Colin Powell gave that to him as their compromise. It was to be a FIRST STEP. Clinton did not PROPOSE "don't ask, don't tell". Clinton did not PROPOSE DOMA. DOMA was the REPUBLICAN response to the possibility that Hawaii would grant gay marriages. ONLY 14 Senators voted against it. ALL were Democrats who voted against it. NONE were Republican. Only ONE Republican voted against it in the House. The rest of the 67 who voted against it in the House were DEMOCRATS. The DEMOCRATS prevented the passage of the Marriage Amendment. Only 7 Republicans voted against it. 41 Democrats voted against it. Only 2 Democrats voted for it. 47 Republicans voted for it.

      DOMA was approved OVERWHELMINGLY by the House and Congress. YES I wish Clinton had not signed, BUT it has been pointed out that if not for DOMA the Republican's Marriage Amendment would have passed. Some decided that it was not needed, because of DOMA. I suspect there is TRUTH to that. DOMA was not PROPOSED by Clinton, but it was voted for by MOST ALL in the Senate and House, so he felt (I'm sure) he would be defying the will of the people if he did not. AND he would have. Times have changed since then. Polls show public opinion is changing in our favor.

      It is DEMOCRATS who are pushing for gay marriage, where ever a push is going on, such as the WONDERFUL Governor in NY, David Paterson. So it is MOSTLY from the Democratic Party that we get some support and where we feel some hope. And then people like you act as if we are IGNORANT and GULLIBLE for seeing the truth that is there for us to see. We are supposed to cut off our noses, to spite our faces because ALL Democrats are not like Ted Kennedy, or Feingold? Bush Senior or Dole were better for the gay community than Clinton? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

      Many gay people liked Bill Clinton because he actually said the word GAY in MANY speeches. Before him, we were not mentioned. He called for equality for all, in his speeches, and included us by NAME. The GAY community. People all over the Nation heard the President ACKNOWLEDGE us, in a positive way. That had NOT been done. NOT by Bush Senior, or Reagan. Ever hear of the word PERSPECTIVE? The times and the attitude of the times need to be considered, in order to have and keep PERSPECTIVE. Clinton was President in a very aggressively antigay atmosphere, that Bush and Rove then USED in defiance to how gay friendly Clinton had been. The Republican Base was all riled up over Clinton's gay friendliness. NOW, because many well known people have come out, such as Elton, Ellen, Rosie, Knight, Lang, Ethridge, Harris, Bass, and the list goes on, people are getting used to us gay folk, and attitudes are changing. Ellen is more popular than Oprah. We have gay characters doing passionate mouth kissing on Network TV, as on Brothers And Sisters.

      You write as if Clinton, in a wildly pro-gay environment, in which the Republicans and the military leaders, and the public were demanding equality of us, Bill was mean to us. ?????????

      In an interview for the Advocate, that Bill Clinton did VERY SOON after his Presidency ended, he said that what the gay community had to do was to come out. The MORE of us that come out, the more Society knows that we are everywhere, including in their families. And that they LOVE someone who is gay. He said that is the most important thing that we can do, for ourselves, to cause change. AND he is right.

      NOW, I hope that Bill and Hill will go ride off into the sunset together, BUT no matter how bad you think Bill or Hill are, Bush was 1 million times worse. AND, McCain has promised the type of judges who the gay community can not expect good things from. So, whenever the Democratic Party has failed us, the Republican Party has failed us MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE.

    1. Kevin on Jun 4, 2008 2:38:17 PM:

      BB: Boo hoo. I stand by every word, and I didn't have to avoid the subject of the Clintons to describe the Clintons. This post was about the Clintons. And since the truth hurts, you tried to pretend it was about something else. Very Clintonian ;-) *kiss*

    1. Hawyer on Jun 4, 2008 6:15:18 PM:

      First of all, I have never been an ardent Hillary fan: (1) I have never heard her utter a word with any substance behind it; (2) she has no natural constituency; and (3) her vote on the Iraq war (for which she has never capitulated - much less begged forgiveness) was a disgraceful blood-soaked triangulation in preparation of her presidential run.

      But having said that - after eight years of W, I was prepared to eat-glass and vote for her over any Republican served up by the GOP.

      But after last night - if you accept the proposition that she is not insane - the only other conclusion you can draw from her defiant stance ---- IS THAT SHE IS PREPARING TO GO LIBERMAN ON US; i.e., if she can't beat Obama, she's going to run against him. If so, all of her horse shit about loving the Democratic party will soon rise to the level of the rest of her whoppers.

      And make no mistake about it, if a McCain is elected in November, that will be the incontrovertible END of the Democratic Party --- which may very well be the best thing in the long run.

    1. BB on Jun 4, 2008 7:31:25 PM:

      You described Bill Clinton WITHOUT perspective, and arrogantly so. That is NOT fair. Your tone was insulting, in a "'ney ney ney ney ney," way. Like a High School "know-it-all", doing a "told you so" dance. There are REASONS for the gay community to have appreciated Bill. I, and some others, listed some of those reasons. He actually ACKNOWLEDGED us, publicly, and spoke of the GAY community in his National speeches, including us as being a PART of this Country. He was the FIRST PRESIDENT to do that. He stopped gay discrimination in Federal Hiring. He appointed an openly gay woman to his cabinet. He appointed the first openly gay ambassador, when the Republicans were on recess. He had gay friends. He gave the Country the wonderfully liberal Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, who, along with his other appointee, Breyer, helped end the dreadful antigay State Sodomy laws.

      Bill did not propose "don't ask, don't tell." He proposed an end to gay discrimination in the military, and he was given "don't ask don't tell". He angered the Generals, the Republicans, and the public with his proposal for a gay friendly military. That is the PERSPECTIVE of it that you have chosen to ignore.

      I dislike Bill mostly for how he campaigned for Hillary. I dislike Hillary mostly for how she campaigned. That is enough reasons to dislike them, but you have chosen to reach back and insult those in the gay community for appreciating that Bill was a President who at least, FOR THE FIRST TIME, did some things for the gay community in a time when homophobia was FAR worse than it is now, and he became thought of by many homophobes as a "fag lover", as some white folks were labeled "nigger lovers" who supported civil rights. Your spin of it causes you to be a version of Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. His gay friendliness is what initially caused the determination by some Republicans to destroy him, and get rid of him.

      He was the most pro-gay President that we had ever had, up until that time, and since. HOPEFULLY Obama will be better and do better. I think he will. BUT he too is aware that Homophobes are crocodiles in the water that he must carefully wade through. There are LESS of them now. When Clinton was President they were swarming all around him. Bill needs to be viewed in that context, and given props where props are due.

      I hate gay closet queens like Anderson Cooper far more than I hate the STRAIGHT Bill Clinton. Bill did more for us than many gays have, because people like Anderson Cooper help the gay community as a WHOLE when they come out. They cause more straight people to say, "hey, gay is not so bad." Thus making for less crocodiles for a pro-gay President to wade through, in order to be there for the gay community as they might like to be.

    1. Mark Mead on Jun 4, 2008 8:06:05 PM:

      Wise folks should avoid an argument with Kevin on the wonderful Clinton years - he lived that 24 7 and knows his stuff. And as usual he is spot on.


    1. Mark Mead on Jun 4, 2008 8:06:59 PM:

      Wise folks should avoid an argument with Kevin on the wonderful Clinton years - he lived that 24 7 and knows his stuff. And as usual he is spot on.


    1. Strict Scrutiny on Jun 4, 2008 10:11:28 PM:

      I say to my gay Democratic friends who were so deluded during the messianic Clinton years in Washington simply this: we told you so. Look at the Clintons now, and see what we all saw the whole time.

      Oh, really? Gay democrats were deluded by the Clintons? If we were deluded, then you and your conservative pals in the Log Cabin group who were stumping for the GOP during the 90's were certifiably insane.

      Look, Kevin, I agree with what you said. I can't defend Hillary anymore. I'd like to, but I can't. But this last bit? Gimme a break. And besides, gloating doesn't become you.

    1. Kevin on Jun 4, 2008 11:43:45 PM:

      BB and SS: Sorry that the truth hurts, but there you are. Not much left to say.

    1. Double T on Jun 5, 2008 1:45:34 AM:

      I met you half way. Can you meet BB and SS half.
      Separate Clinton Past(Bill) and Present/Future Clinton(Hillary)?

      I did hear something wild on cable. Hillary's troops are still pushing hard for a VP seat. OK, fine. Not a big surprise.

      Obama’s people said they had a problem with Slick Willy hanging around. Allegedly, Hillary’s people began making promises restricting the number of days Bill could be in D.C.. He would promise to continue traveling the world fighting AIDS, Hunger and Unwed Mothers. I think he’s especially close to the last two.

      I have a solution, and it might be from the Clinton handbook. Put Hillary on the ticket as V.P. Create the SUPER TICKET. Unleash the borg and flying monkeys. Then Hillary makes history as the first female VP. All Obama has to do then, is give Bill and her enough rope to hang themselves. Then fire her ass. Find a reason, or no reason at all.

      Does anyone know the procedure to sh-t can a Vice President?

    1. DaveNPa on Jun 5, 2008 8:15:42 AM:

      And will you attack Obama with such vile when as president he passes no pro-gay legislation, doesn't repeal DADT, and doesn't make it any easier for Expats to bring their partners state side?

      I haven't heard one utterance from him that makes me believe he actually has a PLAN to deal with gay issues.

      It's just "Change, change, Change" "blah blah blah". Anyone can stand up there and spout that rhetoric.

      It's okay for him to stand up there and make those promises, but if the house and senate don't agree on his ideas, little will be done. The best he could do is veto any FMA legislation that comes across his desk.

      The bottom line is, there are way more issues in this country than "gay issues". Let's hope he can handle them.

    1. Tim C on Jun 5, 2008 9:25:04 AM:

      Double T, the President cannot dismiss the Vice President. Even though they run as a ticket, they technically are elected separately. Thus, the Veep has as much right to his office as the President has to his. The Congress can impeach and remove from office the Vice President, but that is the only way the Vice President can be removed from office against his will. The most the President can do is to freeze out the Vice President, but he does have his own budget, his own staff, and he is President of the Senate, so there is still a lot of mischief he can perform. Vice Presidents should be chosen wisely because they will probably be with you for your whole term.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Jun 5, 2008 10:13:20 AM:

      I met you half way. Can you meet BB and SS half.
      Separate Clinton Past(Bill) and Present/Future Clinton(Hillary)?

      Thank you, Double T. That's exacty right -- we have to separate Hillary's vile 2008 presidential campaign from the previous Clinton years. Some of the things Kevin said were unquestionably true. But that last bit was a bit much. I absolutley do not regret voting for Bill Clinton twice in the 90's.

      BTW, I don't think Hillary would be a wise choice for VP. She is not going to be happy as second banana. I think she'd try to soak up the limelight and run the show from behind the scenes -- even more than Dick Cheney. The fun now will be to guess who the VP picks will be.

      BB: You made several valid points.

    1. Tim on Jun 5, 2008 7:16:14 PM:

      BB for the record democrats are not pushing gay marriage, and in fact Obama denounced the california ruling as going to far.

    1. Scott on Jun 5, 2008 8:58:15 PM:

      The Obama supporters need to get a grip. Hillary Clinton won more votes than any presidential nominee in US history. She deserves respect. If you continue to attack her her supporters will vote for McCain. Let her exit on her own terms.

      I hope Hillary gets the job of a supreme court justice. She would be great.

      Barrack Obama's "change" is racial change. I have no doubt that race will be central to his presidency. I think he will use all his political capital on race issues (open borders, affirmitive action, drugs, crime, fatherlessness, poverty etc.) and ignore gay issues. He's pretty much ignored gay people so far except when he's wanted money.

    1. BB on Jun 6, 2008 10:40:02 AM:

      Tim, please read, in order to be informed:


      I said where there is a push on behalf of gay marriage, there will most likely be a Democrat doing the push, NOT a Republican. I did not say ALL Democrats. I said SOME Democrats, as opposed to few or NO Republicans.

      Yes, Kevin, I get it. You are arrogantly proud of your critique of Bill Clinton, that is devoid of perspective. In your reality, Bill was President during a time when the Republican Party, including Delay, Lindsey Graham, and Gingrich, were DEMANDING gay equality, as was the military leaders, and the Public at large, and Bill IGNORED them, and went against their will.

      Thanks Strict Scrutiny for seeing the unfairness of this, as I see it too.

      Mark Mead, so it is to be "HAIL to the almighty, all knowing, know-it-all Kevin" who is unable to even comprehend the words "historical perspective".

      DaveNPa, if society can transcend racism, it is a step closer to transcending homophobia as well. Obama represents American youngness. Young American, particularly those who are Democrats, are mostly pro-gay. Great social progress will occur if Obama becomes President, by him just being a Black man. From slavery to the Oval Office. Progress begets more progress. He has already said he wants to end "Don't Ask", and he wants to end DOMA, and he wants to push for Civil Unions, with ALL the same benefits and protections as marriage, and he calls for equality for us, in his speeches, when he does not have to. He DARES to criticize his Black Community for their homophobia, when he does not need to. He will NOT set the antigay tone that Bush did, and McCain will continue. He will set a more progressive TONE. His judicial choices will be as Clinton's (Ginsburg and Breyer). AND, he is not JUST black, so his focus will be much broader than you seem to want to believe. He was raised by his WHITE mother, and then his WHITE grandparents, all who he LOVED. SO, I believe you are not seeing it in a way that I believe you could.

      And, YES KEVIN, Obama will not do enough for you, and McCain, as Bush, will be just PERFECT for the gay community. JUST PERFECT. I get it.

    1. josé garcia on Jun 6, 2008 11:11:53 AM:

      Listen to the point at about 07:30 on this tape:

      Obama is in a press conference about leaving his church.
      In a response to a question about issues with a new church,
      he seeks an example of a problem that might arise.
      The example he chooses to use:

      "It is not infrequent that if you go into a church,
      a comment is made that suggests, for example,
      an aversion to gays and lesbians.
      That's something that I do not believe in.
      And if I heard that from the pulpit,
      I would strongly object to it.
      That's an extreme example, but ..."
      (Italics on "extreme" are in his intonation, not added.)

      He goes on to other examples.

      Gratuitously, nonchalantly,
      he point out that a church's opposition to gays would be personally offensive.
      HE brought up the subject, not the questioner.
      So it was something totally natural in his mind.

      I think I'm really going to like having a president who's so relaxed about gay rights.

    1. Double T on Jun 6, 2008 11:44:21 AM:

      ......By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

      WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton met rival Barack Obama face-to-face with no one else present, hours before her campaign formally announced she would endorse him Saturday at an event in Washington........

      Any Bets on the outcome? I pray he does not pick her as a VP. And, if she is making this announcement alone, instead of her and Obama. I can only assume she's NOT getting the role of second banana.

      I have read several interesting articles on one theory she "hung on" was to resolve the issue of her campaign debt. I think she took $11 mill. out of her own purse. Good ole' politicking.

      Pay me off = I go away

    1. Kevin on Jun 6, 2008 12:06:59 PM:

      BB: What in the heck are you talking about? The point is that many gay Democrats had zero perspective on Clinton and even after the revolting show that was the Hillary 2008 campaign, apparently some continue to. It was never about the billion distractions that the Clintons wanted you to believe, the excuses to hide their shameless egomania -- it was all about them, and their priorities, and their political asses. Period. Sorry that you can't seem to handle that reality without flying to pieces. Accepting the reality of that doesn't have anything to do with the evil, Satanic Republican conspiracy to put gays in deathcamps. See, they had folks like you so hooked on the fantasy of their primacy that by acknowledging the truth about the Clintons meant you'd somehow be surrendering to the gay community's enemies.

      Honey, the war is over. The Berlin Wall is down. You're clinging desperately to the 90s, my friend. Welcome to the new (hopefully post-Clinton) age.

    1. BB on Jun 6, 2008 1:50:27 PM:

      Kevin, what the HECK are YOU talking about? There you go dragging out gay death camps to be insulting, condescending, and to suggest I am hysterical because I say that your critique of Clinton's PRESIDENCY, in terms of the gay community, is devoid of historical perspective. Give credit where credit is due. I AGREE that both he and Hill were HORRID during HER campaign. They were EVERYTHING that Obama wants to change about politics, and how politicians campaign. They are the OLD way. He is the NEW way.

      His call for CHANGE is broad. Right off the bat, as soon as he became the nominee, he INSISTED that the DNC not take money from lobbyists. This is an example of the CHANGE that the Clintons can not comprehend. BUT, Bill Clinton TRIED with the gay community, and in ways no President had tried before, or since. The political perspective you IGNORE is the extreme anti-gayness of the Republican Party and it's leaders (i.e. Delay), and the military leaders, and some within the Democratic Party, and within the Public at large. Obama will enter the Oval Office with an improvement in attitude within the Public in general, concerning gays. The hard edged, never-will-they-change gay haters CLING to the Republican Party. Times have changed, some, as more gays COME OUT to their family and friends. And as more famous people, who are gay, COME OUT to the public, as Bill IMPLORED us to do. They are getting USED to us, and less afraid of us, as Clinton said society needs to, in order for the gay community to better help itself, and be helped.

    1. Kevin on Jun 6, 2008 2:12:34 PM:

      BB: lol I'm not the one screaming here. All I am saying from the beginning is that every excuse in the world from the Clintons since 1992 cannot mask their selfish aims and their galling emotional manipulation of the gay community (Bill particularly) to those ends, among many, many, many, many others who were burned, betrayed, thrown under the bus and stabbed in the back by them, up to today. Defend them all you want, to the point of writing in all capital letters and getting purple in the face for all I care. It's just the echo of noise from days past to me. What the world just witnessed with Hillary's campaign was proof enough that you can talk all you want about how evil, loathsome, bent-on-destruction, murderous, civil-rights-denying, and pointy-horned the Republicans were, are and always will be - but nothing can hide what the Clintons are all about anymore. End of my two cents.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

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