Obama Waffled On Pace's Anti-Gay Remarks Just Like Hillary

[ruggerson]

But Hillary was pilloried here for it, while there was dead silence about Obama.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Personally, I would vote for Obama before Hillary (and Edwards before both), but I think the double standard some at DU afford these candidates is truly appalling.

Hillary does not deserve the trashing she gets here on a daily basis.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usgays0315,0,2870261,print.story

WASHINGTON --

<snip>
On Wednesday, Newsday repeatedly asked Obama if same-sex relationships were immoral.

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters," said Obama, leaving Capitol Hill. "That's probably a good tradition to follow."

He turned the conversation to opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country."

Later, an Obama spokesman said the senator, in fact, disagrees with Pace.

That sequence was remarkably similar to Clinton's responses Tuesday.
<snip>

(more at link)

[Gloria]

1. Yup, they both followed similar patterns...

Personally, they both seem to be so studied that I can't go for either of them.

[marmar]

4. Exactly.....

The fact that both of them didn't immediately answer "no" has really soured me on both of them. What political price did they think they were going to pay? That's just too studied and too wishy-washy for me.

[papau]

2. I agree :-)

:-)

[BeyondGeography]

3. Obama supporter here...agreed

Calling homosexuality immoral is tantamount to calling any sexuality immoral...it's, ummm, sexuality. Orientation and biology, not preference and peccadillo. Very disappointing that our party apparently can't get this right.

And, yes, HRC got hammered more than Obama for it.

[FredScuttle]

5. And that excuses Hillary, how?

Boo-hoo...HRC sold out gays and lesbians and was rightfully taken to task.

You sound like someone defending * for Christ's sake.

[ruggerson]

7. nah, it was just a convenient club

for people to use against a favored target.

As for echoing the Republics, the Hillary bashing here at times sounds, word for word, what comes from Drudge or Limbaugh.

[FredScuttle]

13. She brings a lot of that on herself

Prime example this week. If she wasn't such a shitty, sellout DLC candidate, she wouldn't be pilloried around here so much

[mitchtv]

35. Boo-hoo

Boo-hoo...Obama sold out gays and lesbians and was rightfully taken to task.

You sound like someone defending * for Christ's sake.

[EFerrari]

6. What did I miss? I saw plenty of criticism of Obama.

:shrug:

[rebel with a cause]

37. If there is not a thread criticizing Barack on here at least once a day

I feel like it's really unusual and a lucky day, because there is usually at least two. Other candidates have a bad day here and there, but then they have their supporters opening up twice as many threads defending them. Barack's attacks come steady and most of us who support him try to ignore it and walk away. So I don't feel bad for Hilary, she has Bill out doing her dirty work for her today, and that is all I have to say about that and her.

Sorry if anyone gets offended by this, but just watched "Shut up and sing" and right now "I'm not ready to make nice." After watching those dumb idiots outside their concerts (especially the woman trying to force her baby to say "screw them"), I just wish I could afford to leave here and live in some other country. Like Canada maybe? Well, I don't know where, but somewhere.

[Beaverhausen]

8. Some DUers think there is no country outside of this website

they don't realize that these people have to be elected by the entire population, not just the "progressives" here.

All of these candidates have to weigh their answers carefully. Will we agree with everything they say? Of course not, nor should we.

[ruggerson]

9. Agreed

the "purity or death" faction here is a little alarming.

And naive.

[EFerrari]

10. Wtf? Since when did human rights become part of a political calculation?

And since when did DU become politically naive? Are we talking about the same DU?

:wtf:

[FredScuttle]

14. Didn't you hear?

The ideological purity terrorists here at DU are holding poor little Hillary to an unreasonable standard that will make her unelectable...like clearly and at first opportunity denouncing prejudice and homophobia. Shit like that will keep us in the minority....hold on, wait.

[EFerrari]

15. These are Democrats?

I feel so confused.

[Beaverhausen]

16. Do you think DU represents all voting Democrats?

seriously?

[EFerrari]

18. No, I asked if these people galloping to support the insupportable

were Democrats. Nice try.

[FredScuttle]

17. "Democrats" circa 1957

It's like we're back 50 years talking about the "Negro" problem. Christ.

[EFerrari]

19. No kidding. n/t

[ruggerson]

20. Both of them

clarified their remarks within a day. Both came out decisively on the side that homosexuality is not immoral. What's the point of haranguing Hillary and giving further ammunition to the enemy? Have you watched her speech to HRC? The entire thing?

Edwards reacted in the right way instantly, btw. So his immediate response was to go with his gut. What that tells me is he is less cautious than they are.

With any of the three, we are going to get human rights policies so remarkably different from the Republics that these intra party lynchings don't make much sense to me.

[FredScuttle]

22. So let me get this straight...if we continue to criticize Hillary

the enemy wins? Where oh where have I heard tortured logic like that before...

[ruggerson]

23. Have you watched her speech to the Human Rights Campaign?

[FredScuttle]

27. How about a little consistency?

instead of the tortured "centrist" bullshit she's been rolling out this decade? She could make 10 speeches to the HRC and it wouldn't make up for one of the most vomitous quotes I've heard from a Democrat in the last 7 years. And I'm including Zell Miller in that group.

[ruggerson]

29. I'm far more interested in what she says to the HRC

and what her policy positions are than what she says in an offhand remark to a press question, which she later clarifies.

[FredScuttle]

32. yeah, because the audience is pretty much the same, right?

Pander to the HRC, waffle to the press. SOP for Hillary.

[EFerrari]

24. Your point is well taken. But Hillary, perhaps because she gets

so much press, has gone on the record more than any of others the with some very negative positions re human rights, not only gay rights.

The details do matter, imho.

[ruggerson]

26. My take on her

and I don't know her, so I could be mistaken, is that she sees every question from the press as a potential trick to try to trip her up. Hence, the caution and the choosing of words.

Do me a favor: take 10 minutes and watch this from beginning to end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSPxGmePSiA

[FredScuttle]

28. Press: "Senator Clinton, is the sky blue?"

Clinton: "Well, that's for others to conclude..."

[EFerrari]

31. I watched 18 and I'm sorry, I don't see what you see. n/t

[rebel with a cause]

38. edwards is also not in office.

He has all day to just think about running for office. While the others have to do their jobs and campaign.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. "Plain speaking politician" - is an oxymoron.

Or, an ex-holder of public office.

“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Similar, yes. And I agree, he missed an opportunity to speak out against the bigoted statement.

However, what Hillary said was that she would "leave it up to others" whether Gays were immoral. Slightly different. Obama wasn't asked that directly, so he can't be held responsible for directly addressing that statement.

[tammywammy]

21. "Obama: H'Sexuality Not Immoral Either"

"March 15, 2007
Obama: H'Sexuality Not Immoral Either

Sen. Barack Obama, through a campaign spokesman:

"“As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.”

Posted at 03:24 PM"

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/obama_hsexualit.html

[BeyondGeography]

25. Much better

Check out those comments..."Barack, another Dem at odds with Jesus Christ." To which one can only say, Jesus Christ.

[tammywammy]

30. Well, it would be better if both

Hillary and Obama hadn't had to clarify their statements.

[peacebaby3]

33. If we don't believe Pace should voice his moral beliefs, why would

we bash Obama or Hillary Clinton for NOT pushing their moral beliefs? Seriously, this sounds ridiculous. They were finally forced to offer their moral beliefs and criticized by liberals until they did. Their moral beliefs should have nothing to do with the issue. The only thing they should offer is whether or not they believe "don't ask, don't tell" should remain the policy.

[EFerrari]

34. Yes, and DADT is bad policy with concrete BAD consequences

for gay people who are put at physical risk without access to law enforcement.

That has been clear for years.

[peacebaby3]

36. I completely agree and think it should end. I know that Obama stated his

position on the policy when asked if he agreed with Pace and I believe HR Clinton did as well. I think that was the correct thing for them to do and we shouldn't have pushed them to say state their moral views.