In Hillary Clinton's disturbing attempt to rebrand herself as a Bible-totin', gun-slinging Annie Oakley, complete with right-wing talking points, I guess it's not surprising that gays would end up with the short end of the stick in Camp Clinton these days. Hillary has given lip service to supporting GLBT rights, but her actions over the past few months - not to mention the past few decades - have shown that Hillary is not only trying to distance herself from the gay community and GLBT issues but has done her best to use anti-gay sentiment to her advantage. There's a disturbing pattern at work here, folks, that should outrage any true Democrat who cares about equality....
Hillary's divisive race-baiting tactics alone were enough to ensure that I would never vote for her for anything, not even dog-catcher. And her gay-baiting tactics have now put her right up there with George W. Bush on the list of politicians that I can't even stand to look at. And this coming from a true blue Democrat. Nice going Hillary.
As we wrote yesterday, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley introduced Hillary yesterday and said that she was no "pansy." Well, the pansies weren't amused. The LA Times reports that the story made its way to the Smoking Gun and to the Drudge Report, and now the professional gays are getting involved:
We checked with the Washington headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's premier group promoting gay rights, and it already had a statement in the works.
Trevor Thomas, the group's deputy communications director, sent out this e-mail a few minutes later: "We certainly wish the governor would have chosen his words better and have expressed our disappointment to his staff.”
We've asked the Clinton campaign for a comment but, as of now, nothing has been issued.
The New York Times blog weighs in on Hillary's pansy-gate episode from this morning. (I am amazed that Team Hillary seems to think that in order to woo votes in North Carolina they need to pander to bigotry. Talk about an elitist attitude.) We still haven't heard Hillary reject and denounce the anti-gay slur said right in front of her, said while she laughed about it. Maybe that will be coming tomorrow. Or maybe Hillary doesn't want to say the word gay, and worse yet, do something pro-gay right before the North Carolina primary. Tick tock tick tock.
She's on O'Reilly and her surrogate is accusing her opponent of being a "pansy". Classy - but vintage Clinton. Never miss an opportunity to exploit homophobia. Remember DOMA? Remember doubling the discharges from the military? Remember inaction on AIDS? Remember the Clintons' using anti-gay marriage ads in the South in 1996? And yet the gays keep coming back for more. I don't understand why. I really don't.
Not the most comfortable choice of words, but was Easley really saying that Clinton made Balboa look like a gay person? Or just an effeminate weakling? Who wrote that line for him?
Two points. First, an effeminate weakling IS a gay person. The stereotype doesn't discriminate between the fag and the faggy guy. They're the same thing. Second, Marc is right - everything in the Clinton campaign is scripted - so who wrote that line, and why?
We previously informed you that North Carolina Governor Mike Easley used the word “pansy” in his Hillary Clinton endorsement. Said Easley, “[Mrs. Clinton] makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.”
One reader sent us a note on this poor word choice, which we’d like to share:
You might point out [to your] readers that one would use that term, say, when chasing a gay guy with intent to harm. Or, say, not hiring him. Or maybe not letting him rent an apartment in one’s building.
I expect more from her. She’s no dummy. She knows exactly what that word means.
Considering the Senator’s silence, we get the impression that she simply doesn’t care. And this is a gay ally?
After touring a bio-manufacturing training center, Gov. Easley, First Lady of North Carolina Mary Easley and Clinton held a ceremony at NC State University. The Governor formally expressed his support saying that there was "nothing I love more than a strong powerful woman." Easley concluded his remarks saying Clinton -- "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy".
pan·sy a. Used as a disparaging term for a man or boy who is considered effeminate. b. Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.
So, Hillary isn't gay? Or Hillary isn't a weak gay? And of course, gays are something bad that need to be avoided. Now why would Hillary embrace gay-bashing to help her campaign? Well, putting aside the Clintons' history of embracing gay-bashing when it suited them, take a look at what Ben Smith wrote this morning:
Easley is a meaningful ally in the culture war she's waging against Senator Barack Obama, as she seeks to cast him as a hopelessly unelectable liberal elitist...
Oh, so Hillary has launched a "culture war" against Obama. And what are the three elements of the culture wars? God, guns, and gays. Hillary already pulled the God and gun card on Obama in Pennsylvania, where she couldn't even say when she last went to church, and then claimed she was a hunter after a lifetime as one of America's top gun control advocates. And now she's gay-bashing.
And actually, she started subtly gay-bashing a while back. Remember all of her "San Francisco" references? Then there was her top aides calling Obama supporters "latte sippers who only care about "feelings" (i.e., they're a bit effeminate and effete). (Then again, look who's advising her.)
It's ironic. Hillary is afraid to use the word "gay," and gets visibly uncomfortable when answering questions about gay issues. But using slurs for "fag"" doesn't bother her in the least. Hillary and her people will say anything to get elected. And if that means gay-bashing to win the bubba vote, then so be it. And her people wonder why so many have turned on Hillary in the past few months.
I wrote the other day about how Hillary seems downright afraid of saying the word "gay" (and don't even try to get her to say "lesbian"). I thought it might be interesting to see, in a real-world gay event, just how often Hillary used the words gay, lesbian and lgbt as compared to Obama. Well, what better event to test the candidates than the LOGO gay forum last August where all the Dem candidates were quizzed about gay issues. Here's what we found, in terms of how often Obama and Hillary used the following gay-related words:
My friend Phil Attey asks why Obama keeps mentioning gays and lesbians in his speeches - speeches he makes to the public at large, not just gay audiences - and Hillary never does. Phil writes:
Last month, a gay Philadelphian LGBT publisher raised the issue that Senator Obama, though often addressing LGBT issues and including us in his major speeches, was not granting his publication an exclusive interview. Senator Obama quickly addressed the issue and granted an exclusive interview to the national LGBT publication, The Advocate.
Tonight, following the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Obama once again showed his commitment to our community by including us in his address to the nation. Senator Clinton, speech, once again, did not include us, and it brings up the issue that hers never do.
But Obama speaks movingly of gay equality, and not just before gay audiences. He has raised the issue among white farmers and in black churches, where the message is both unwelcome and needed.
Clinton, by contrast, rarely raises the issue on her own, never does so before unfriendly audiences, and seems reluctant even to say the word “gay.”
Obama “gets it” in a way that no previous candidate for president has. Part of this is generational, but it is nonetheless real.
Obama mentions us in his speeches, a lot. And yes, Hillary will say those are just words. But you know, Obama was willing to chastize his own community for their homophobia in a speech given on Martin Luther King's birthday in MLK's own church to thousands of black leaders. Those are words that matter. Here's to hoping that Hillary can find it in herself to utter the word gay (and even lesbian) in a setting that isn't limited to a gay audience.
One more thing, watch this interview Hillary did with the gay cable network, Logo. First, the issue comes up about her never using the g-word, and she does use it, once during an entire 5 minute interview with a gay station about gay issues, while mentioning "gay organizations." But notice how repeatedly in the interview Hillary hesitates and stumbles at places where you would naturally expect her to say the word "gay" - she doesn't say it - she kind of stops, doesn't say gay, then moves on. Watch the video for yourself. She's not comfortable saying the word. Obama is. I think that tells you something about how they feel about the issue inside. It's likely generational - he's in his 40s, my generation, she's 60. A transcript of the worst part follows the video, below - note particularly the question and her answer 1 minute and 2 seconds in:
1:02 LOGO: "Your opponent, Senator Obama, regularly mentions gay people in his stump speech... You don't mention gay rights all the time in your stump speech, you do when you're in front of gay audiences, why is that?"
1:21 CLINTON: "Well I do mention, uh, from time to time, um, you know I don't mention, you know, everything in every speech that I give, but uh people, you know, know how committed I am and they know what I've done, and that I led the efforts uh to try and defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment, working with you know all of the major uh gay rights organizations, uh, so you know I'm gonna continue to not just talk about what I will do but demonstrate by my actions what I have done and will do."
Anyone else notice that Hillary and her staff keep gratuitously mentioning "San Francisco" when talking about Obama's "bitter" comments? Markos noticed it too: "I remember the good ol' days when only Republicans used to demonize San Francisco," Markos wrote yesterday. A DailyKos diarist noticed it too, as did the readers at popular gay news and culture site Datalounge. As did some folks interviewed by the SF Chronicle:
So the most shocking part of the whole incident, he said, has been the appearance that "Hillary Clinton wants to ... throw in with the critique from the far right" in appearing to feed the image of an out-of-touch "San Francisco-style Democrat."
It suggests "that the Clintons are so committed to the political tactics that they'll do virtually anything to advance a step without regard for the long term implications," he said. "Most Democrats and most Republicans will not attack their opponent in such a way as to give massive fodder to the other side in the general election."
But "she's just writing the playbook for the Republicans in November..."
And we all know what San Francisco is code for. Now let's examine what Hillary was after. From the NYT:
Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. Obama’s “guns or religion” comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters...
Value voters. That's PC media slang for the religious right. Here are a few examples of Hillary dropping the SF-bomb concerning the bitter thing:
"I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive.
CAMPBELL BROWN: But, senator, you’ve been out there on the stump attacking him pretty aggressively over this. And his response has been, and he said it pretty bluntly tonight, shame on you. You know that he is a man of faith—this is what he's saying—and to suggest that he is demeaning religion is you playing politics.
HRC: I do think it raises a lot of concerns and we've seen that exhibited in the last several days by people here in Pennsylvania, in Indiana where I was yesterday, and elsewhere, because it did seem so much in line with what often we are charged with. Someone goes to a closed door fund-raiser in San Francisco and makes comments that do seem elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.
Again, why throw in San Francisco?
Then check out Hillary's Web site. It's littered with "bitter" San Francisco references, including the last one, that's quite damning. Here, here, here, here, and especially here:
MT Endorsement Watch: “Yellowstone County Commissioner Bill Kennedy says he is endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton…[Kennedy said:] ‘In Montana, going to church or going hunting is part of our heritage, not something we ‘cling to’ out of bitterness or frustration…Sen. Obama showed a real disconnect with rural Montana. It might work to look down on us from San Francisco, but it won’t sell when he comes back to Montana.’”
Really? From San Francisco? What is that supposed to mean? Oh, and before I have to deal with all the "Hillary is SUPER pro-gay" responses, yes she is. She's also super pro-black, pro-gun-control, and pro-NAFTA. But when it became expedient for her campaign to race-bait, embrace guns, and then claim she was always anti-NAFTA, Hillary flipped on a dime.
As for the gays, yes, the Clintons are very pro-gay, until they're not. Remember DOMA, and Bill Clinton's radio ads touting his support for the anti-gay bill? Here's the NYT coverage of the ads at the time:
In a radio advertisement aimed at religious conservatives, the Clinton campaign is showcasing the President’s signature on a bill banning gay marriages in spite of earlier White House complaints that the issue amounted to ”gay baiting.”…
Mr. Clinton signed the law early on a Saturday morning, minimizing news coverage. He said he had long agreed with the principles in the bill but hoped it would not be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals…
In fact, after proclaiming to the community how painful it was for him to sign it, President Clinton’s reelection campaign had ads up in the South touting the legislation within two weeks!
Let's also revisit my post of last June in which we learned that Bill Clinton was advising John Kerry to endorse the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. What kind of advice do you think Bill is giving Hillary about how to reach "values voters" - well, we already know his advice, throw the gays under the bus - and do you really think she's not taking it?
Let me also share the story of how Hillary's people freaked when Joe and I told them we were going to ask Hillary a "gay" question at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting a year ago (I mean, the question was about DOMA and civil unions, hardly anything she hasn't answered before). Joe literally got yelled at for even suggesting that we were going to ask Hillary something about DOMA. We were told that we had to give Hillary and her people the question in advance. We refused. We were then told that we couldn't ask her about DOMA since her husband signed it into law - apparently, it would be embarrassing to her. You'll be surprised to hear that we never got the interview. And remember that a year ago February, we were one of the only top blogs that even liked Hillary. Senator Dodd, on the contrary, had no problem answering the same question at the same meeting. Wesley Clark gave a great answer as well.
For some reason, the Florida press is pushing several stories feeding the notion that Republican Governor Charlie Crist really likes women. Could this have something to do with rumors that the very-single and always-tan Mr. Crist is being considered as a VP choice for John McCain? (There are other rumors too.) There's this, which is embarrassing enough ("chick magnet"? Yeah, right), and then there's this from his dad, regarding his son's "fondness" for women:
"Always! I mean, I can't keep up with him. And they like him, too."
Thankfully the British Home Secretary has come to his senses. John posted about this earlier in the week when the government was preparing to send Kazemi back to Iran where he feared a death sentence, like his boyfriend, for being gay. It's almost beyond belief that it had to come to this. How could any government even think of deporting someone under such circumstances?
A gay teenager who faces the death penalty if he is forced to return to Iran has won a temporary reprieve after the Home Secretary halted his planned deportation and agreed to reconsider his case.
The Government's surprise intervention yesterday follows an international outcry over the plight of Mehdi Kazemi, 19, who lost his asylum claim in Britain even though his former boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian state police and executed for sodomy.
The religious right activist group, American Family Association, usually claims "victory" when they need to finish a boycott that they already lost. You'll recall that two years ago we beat the AFA when they pressured Ford to back away from its support for equal rights. It took about 2 weeks. Since that time, AFA continued its boycott, issuing press releases claiming credit for the downturn in the US auto industry, etc. And now they finally had to save face and end the boycott somehow, so they're trying to say that Ford has backed away from advertising in the gay media. Uh, no. Ford said that it's had to cut back on all of its advertising and charitable giving because of the company's financial situation. Note how AP, of course, gives no mention of the fact that the boycott was a total failure two years ago. (Background on the Ford battle. Joe.My.God. also has more.)
Vets for Freedom, the pro-war group that is highlighting a former gay-porn star on its Web site home page, is now having its congressional endorsements called into question, starting with their support for Republican Steve Stivers in Ohio. Is Stivers going to reject and denounce any association with a group that includes the star of "Touched by an Anal"?
In turning down Ms Emambakhsh and Mr Kazemi's asylum applications, the Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted.
Did you get that? The British government says it's the gays fault if they get executed by the Iranian government for being gay. If the gays were simply more "discrete" no one would want to execute them. (I can imagine the British Home Office circa 1943: "If European Jews would only stop acting so Jewish...") Absolutely astounding.
Of all the former military guys they could find, this is the best the "Vets for Freedom" could come up with? Former gay-porn star Matt Sanchez? [Insert embed joke here.] Not that there's anything wrong with Vets for Freedom showcasing on their home page the star of the feel-good movie of the year, "Touched by an Anal." But still, kind of pathetic for a "conservative" group that probably isn't so good on Don't Ask Don't Tell. (Sanchez says he's not gay, but I'm guessing anal sex for hire and public distribution counts as "telling" anyway.)
