Hillary needs to stop with her bul**hit about DOMA

[Chitown Kev]

Chris f'en Geidner went into the Clinton Library and looked at the receipts.

How The Clinton White House Handled DOMA In 1996, In Their Own Words by Chris Geidner


WASHINGTON — Over the past few years, some Democrats — including the Clintons — have offered a new explanation for why they supported the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

The threat of a federal constitutional amendment, these Democrats have argued, motivated them to support DOMA — a law that defined marriage for federal government purposes as between one man and one woman and said states could refuse to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages from others states.

“We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress,” Bill Clinton told an audience in 2009, “to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states.” Four former senators — including Tom Daschle, who made the claim in 2011 — raised the idea in a Supreme Court brief in 2013. Clinton later cited that brief when, in a Washington Post op-ed, he called for the law he signed to be struck down by the court. Hillary Clinton just last week called her husband’s decision to sign DOMA “a defensive action.”

There is no contemporaneous evidence, however, to support the claim that the Clinton White House considered a possible federal constitutional amendment to be a concern, based on a BuzzFeed News review of the thousands of documents released earlier this year by the Clinton Presidential Library about same-sex couples’ marriage rights and the Defense of Marriage Act. In the documents, which include correspondence from a wide array of White House and Justice Department officials, no one even hints that Bill Clinton’s thinking or actions regarding DOMA were animated by the threat of a federal constitutional amendment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/how-the-clinton-white-house-handled-doma-in-1996-in-their-ow#.ttJbpB6ORe

Read it ALL. Quality research from one of the finest LGBT journalists out there.

Mind you, I am an uncommitted voter; Sanders, O'Malley, and Clinton all have issues as far as I am concerned.

But bullshit like these (ahem!) equivocations and spin of Hillary Clinton's do her no favors with me.

[bravenak]

1. I agree!!! Stop the bull.

I have equivication.

[Chitown Kev]

2. I mean, tell the truth

BC was more worried about his reelection as opposed to some sort of altruistic thing.

Is that so hard?

[bravenak]

3. Not that hard to me. Just explain it and say she was wrong.

[sabrina 1]

80. Hey, I have no problem with that. I remember when she supported DOMA. She was wrong.

[bravenak]

81. Exactly.

[marym625]

4. I remember the vote and everything surrounding it

Her claim is bullshit. Should say their claim. But not at all surprising

[MADem]

5. If you are to be fair, you should ask people to read THIS as well:

http://mic.com/articles/50573/history-of-doma-don-t-blame-bill-clinton-for-being-put-in-a-bind

That tells the story with more clarity than that BUZZFEED litany of process.

There were no good answers. DOMA was going to become law if Clinton signed it, or not.

And if Bill Clinton didn't sign it, Bob Dole may have become President--and it's highly unlikely he would have funded AIDS research, never mind appointed a gay ambassador.

[Chitown Kev]

6. Here's the problem

It's 2016.

Hillary is the one running for president in an era where the Defense of Marriage Act is history.

It might be an ugly truth to tell, at this point, but tell it.

Such a blatant and checkable lie goes straight to the heart of one of the reservations that some people have about voting for Clinton: trust.

Sanders had no problem clearing the record and his record (which was not a full endorsement of nationwide ME in 2006) is out there for everyone to see, now.

[MADem]

14. You might want to examine post 7 before you toss out the L word like that.

I remember those days, I was up on the Hill a LOT during that time, and what she is saying resonates with my memory of that time. The Republicans WANTED a Constitutional amendment. They wanted prohibition of marriage equality enshrined in the Constitution. POTUS Clinton threw them a bone that changed nothing, shut them up long enough to win re-election, and went on to do a hell of a lot more than President Dole (who would have turned back the clock) ever would have done.

[LostOne4Ever]

9. Bill Clinton won by over 8% over Bob Dole, and given the presence of Ross Perot as spoiler

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]There was no threat of losing the White House by vetoing the bill.

Either Bill Clinton supported DOMA or he lacked the courage of conviction to do the correct thing. Either way, a black eye for him.[/font]

[jfern]

10. And the polls showed Bill up more than that

Note that he signed DOMA September 21.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. Looks like he took a dip.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]Who'd of thought it, you stab your own supporters in the back and campaign on that betrayal and your numbers go down?

[/font]

[Chitown Kev]

16. Clinton received 66% of the LGB vote in '96

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index2.html

Usually the Dem clears 70% (as Clinton did in 1992).

I withheld my vote from Clinton because of DOMA (and Dr. Elders).

[LostOne4Ever]

26. Exactly. nt

[MADem]

11. Not true. Bob Dole was the FIRST CO-SPONSOR of the bill.

It would have been the SIGNATURE ISSUE had not Clinton signed it. And had he not signed it, it would have become law anyway, as it was veto-proof.

Don't read the link if you don't want to, but don't try to rewrite history. The right wing were determined to fire up the homophobia to GOTV, and Clinton's signature thwarted that effort.

[Chitown Kev]

13. Probably fired up some Southern homophobes

in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri to vote for him too...

It's one thing to run an ad but to come back to the community and say that "we did it for you" is despicable.

[MADem]

19. I have never denied that he took a bad situation that he was crammed into, and made hay with it.

I think you are correct that Southern homophobes who liked his presidency to that point, maybe even were able to afford to buy a home, maybe got retrained for a new job, would have turned on him in a heartbeat and voted for War Hero Dole had he vetoed that bill and seen it become law anyway.

He needed to turn trash--that bill--into treasure--his reelection, and he accomplished that. Was it a Faustian bargain? Of course. But he was, as I've said, between a rock and a hard place. There simply was no better way. He could have vetoed it, and gone home to Arkansas the following January.

I don't think anyone is saying to the community "We did it for you." I think they're saying "This sucked, this was craven, there was no good path out of this mess, this was totally political, but really...what other options were there? It was a shitty deal, or a shittier deal--those were the choices. Thank heavens that it did, eventually, get better."

[LostOne4Ever]

15. You are the one rewriting history

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]The people who would have been turned off by Clinton for that already were supporting one of the other two candidates. The right hated him so much it polarized the whole country. The man could have had Jesus Christ himself come down and endorse him and things wouldn't have changed.

What saved him was Ross Perot. Any additional support he would have lost (and be real it wouldn't have caused an 8% drop) would have been split between Perot and Dole. No way it could ever have added up to a loss.

I don't mind, and actually consider it a plus, when people play politics to further the cause, but that is not what he did. He backstabbed the LGBTQ community for expediency and promoting his own career when it wasn't even necessary.

I will never respect his signing that or forget that it happened.

If you want to claim that he supported something to prevent something worse stick with DADT. That would be the truth. But on DOMA the facts are not in his favor.[/font]

[MADem]

20. You wrongly assume that everything would have remained static had he vetoed that bill.

You are wrong.

He would have lost support all over the place--most notably in the south. That eight points you keep waving around would have gone to DOLE.

I was on the Hill when this was happening. My memory of it is pretty clear.

[jfern]

23. Why? Because Clinton's top adviser, Dick Morris said he had to go totally 3rd way

in order to win re-election? The same Dick Morris who predicted that Arkansas would be safe Obama in 2008 when he lost it by 20 points?

[MADem]

25. Dick "Toe Sucker" Morris? You do realize that he is a bloated wastrel with absolutely zero

credibility, don't you? Fox News consultant and bitter, angry loser, Dick Morris?

Dick Morris has been in bed with the GOP since he was fired by Clinton.

Why even drag him in here, like a cat with a dead field mouse?

If you haven't gotten your fill of that cretin, you can find him on Fauxsnooze, shitting on Hillary:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/fox-brings-back-dick-morris-predict-doom


No one is arguing that Clinton was all bold and brave on this issue--he wasn't. What he was, was pragmatic. No one was supporting gay marriage back then. Hell, we didn't pass the fifty percent approval mark on that issue until fairly recently. What he did, though, is he took a trash bill--DOMA, and turned it into the treasure of his re-election. He'd be the first to admit that he did that. But had he hewed to the high road, President Dole would have gotten to work unravelling DADT and making sure that AIDS funding got slashed down to nothing.

There was no good path. DOMA was going to happen, no matter what. Might as well use it to stay in power, fund AIDS research, and appoint a gay ambassador while waiting for the nation to come to their senses.

[jfern]

27. He was Bill Clinton's top political adviser for most of 1996

I mean, Bill probably would have signed DOMA anyways, but Dick Morris convinced Bill he especially had to move to the right to win re-election. Obviously he has zero credibility on predicting elections as having Arkansas safe Obama demonstrates, but for some reason Clinton believed his shit.

And no you didn't have to support gay marriage to oppose DOMA. Did Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska support gay marriage? I doubt it. But he voted no.

[MADem]

33. DOMA was voted in by people who hated it, because they were reflecting political reality at the time

AND the expressed views of their own constituencies--many of whom were strongly opposed to gay marriage. They also didn't want wingnuts screwing with the Constitution.

Back then, it was more common for people to NOT support it than support it. A lot of opposition was fairly heated, too--this wasn't an "agree to disagree" issue--people got into SHOUTING matches on television over it.

Look at how UNPOPULAR the concept was back then, and how the idea gained acceptance over time. People snark about Will and Grace, but their TV friendship started the conversation, and the path to understanding:





https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/20/the-absolutely-stunning-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage-in-1-chart/

[jfern]

35. Voting no on DOMA didn't mean you supported SSM

This op ed from early 1996 pointed out issues with DOMA that weren't about SSM.

Such a reading would mean, for example, that Congress could decree that any state was free to disregard any Hawaii marriage, any California divorce, any Kansas default judgment, any punitive damage award against a lawyer -- or any of a potentially endless list of official acts that a Congressional majority might wish to denigrate. This would convert the Constitution's most vital unifying clause into a license for balkanization and disunity.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/25/opinion/toward-a-less-perfect-union.html

[MADem]

39. That is also true. Sanders, for example, stated that his objections had to do with the

states rights aspect of things. He didn't believe the federal government should have any role at all in these matters.

That said, the GOP was ready to do some framing, and Clinton's signature ruined their opportunity.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Here are some things said by the Democrats who voted NO on DOMA, said in the Congress:

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.): “Whether senators are for or against same-sex marriage, there are ample reasons to vote against this bill because it represents an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power.”

Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.): “I feel very strongly that this legislation is fundamentally wrong, and feeling as I do it would not be true to my conscience or my oath of office if I fail to speak out against it.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif): “To me, this is ugly politics. To me, it is about dividing us instead of bringing us together. To me, it is about scapegoating. To me, it is a diversion from what we should be doing.”

And my favorite, a woman whose entire testimony that day is worth reading:

Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill.): “I hope that every person on this floor who is going to look at and vote on this bill considers for a moment what the judgment of history might be if 50 years from now their grandchildren look at their debates and look at their words in support of this mean-spirited legislation, and consider the judgment that will be cast upon them then.”

It did not even take 50 years for us to be looking at this mean-spirited legislation. Time is not on the side of those who did this nor those who defend it.

[JI7]

84. Senator Robb , son in law of the man who signed the civil rights acts

and Virginia was much more conservative and Robb would end up losing to the idiot George Allen.

but he is someone Virginia can look back on with Pride today .

Robb following the tradition of Johnson signing the civil rights act .

[LostOne4Ever]

24. Then provide proof

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]The testimony of this 8% that would have gone to Dole without Perot taking any of them.

I lived in the south at the time, I know how much he was hated down here. Those who would have abandoned him over DOMA were already supporting Dole/Perot.

If percentages don't convince you, look at the electoral map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Results_by_state

The states it MIGHT have flipped:

Arizona:8
Kentucky:8
Nevada:4
Tennessee:11

31

379-31=348
159+31=190

Not even close.[/font]

[MADem]

30. That's just nonsense. You're acting--again--as though everything is static and not dynamic.

Had Clinton vetoed that bill, that would have been The Conversation. By signing the bill, he shut That Conversation down.

There would have been issue ads running on TV and radio nationwide around the clock, relentlessly pounding how Bill Clinton wants to corrupt the little children. Clinton would have been associated with all manner of "perversion"--because that's how the GOP would approach the subject. The Morality Card would have come out in force. The churches would have been fired up--not just in the south, but from sea to shining sea.

If you think there would have been a great pushback of people saying "Gee, let's all get out the vote and DEFEND THOSE GAYS!" I have a bridge to sell you--most people, back then, were NOT in favor of gay marriage. Civil unions, sure. But Gay Marriage? Massachusetts was the Cheese--and the Cheese Stands Alone. VT didn't want gay marriage as late as 2006...you think they would have thrilled to it ten years earlier?

His veto could have kept his own supporters home. It also could have divided some traditionally Democratic constituencies who were slower to come to an accord on this issue. They might have stayed home, too, especially if their pastor convinced them that this was not a cause to champion.

I'm amazed at how many people forget what life was like just twenty years ago. People were NOT of the 'common mind' on this issue at all. Now, nobody bats an eye--back then, though, it was a contentious subject.

[jfern]

31. I thought DADT was the most retarded thing at the time in 1993

Although I don't really remember DOMA. I think DADT got a lot more media coverage.

[MADem]

34. I hated DADT for a very different reason.

I spent an interminable amount of time doing NOTHING but reading and re-drafting thousands of pages of military directives to accommodate the full inclusion of gays in the military. I had dozens of document boxes filled with re-writes. We were ready to roll, we had everything pretty much ready to issue changes to the relevant documents. It was a massive undertaking. We worked our asses off, too. Then, when it was all called off, we were devastated. All that hard work, for naught.

All that stuff got shoved in the archives when DADT came out. We only had to change a few dozen documents to accommodate that directive. I often wonder if anyone saved the list of changes we crafted--it would have saved someone a lot of work if they did.

[LostOne4Ever]

37. And you are acting as if you could actually know how things would have went down

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]And they did pound Clinton ON EVERYTHING in every ad, and manner possible.

I had teachers telling us about the great Clinton murder conspiracy, endless propaganda about smoking pot and being a communist. Again the people who would have turned so violently on someone over something like that already supported Dole/Perot. The im-"moral majority" and Religious right didn't come into existence in the 90s...it goes back before that.

He also was elected for the first time DESPITE promising to be a pro-lgbtq candidate in 1992. If it was such a loser issue why didn't they kill him then?

And if you think that over 8% of Clinton supporters would have been lost over just DOMA and broken SOLELY for Dole...I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I will sell you. Such a shift over a single issue on undecided voters would be unprecedented in modern american politics.

He might have lost some voters but not enough to lose the election.

But if you have proof that an unprecidented shift in voters over a single issue let us see it as opposed to say "oh you know it true."

Especially on an issue no one was talking about. If the GOP could rally that much support that quickly on one issue Bob Dole would have won that election in a landslide regardless of the vote on DOMA.

Of course it is easy to make up alternative history that supports your position. Let me do it too:

Crystal ball of alternative history based on nothing but my own bias, what would have happened had Clinton vetoed DOMA?[/font]

CBAH: Clinton would have had more votes from not pissing off his LGBTQ supporters.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]Thank you Crystal ball.[/font]

[MADem]

41. There's no need to be snarky and rude, with your "Crystal Ball" comments.

I've provided facts and cites--if you don't read them, that's not my fault.

You seem to forget that that election had the lowest voter turnout of pretty much any election ever. Under fifty percent. That's in your link--did you read it? This is also in your link:

President Clinton's chances of winning were initially considered slim in the middle of his term as his party had lost both the House and the Senate in 1994 for the first time in decades; he had reneged on promises to cut taxes in order to reduce the deficit, enacted a Federal assault weapons ban, and had a failed healthcare reform initiative. He was able to regain ground as the economy began to recover from the early 1990s recession with a relatively stable world stage. He went on to win re-election with a substantial margin in the popular vote and electoral college. Despite Dole's defeat, the Republican Party was able to maintain a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The voters liked him, personally, but they preferred the GOP platform.

It is obvious to even the most naive student of political science that a shit-flinging contest about how Clinton was "pro-gay marriage" -- at a time when support for gay marriage was under thirty percent--might have gotten out the vote. That could have been ginned up as a dramatic, rallying issue in no time at all. The word would have gone forth from every church in the land, Clinton would have been accused of endangering children and all manner of horrors.

The GOP would have LOVED it if Clinton vetoed that bill--it would have given them something to sink their teeth into. The ads would have run in heavy rotation--the GOP had a lot of money to throw around; they just couldn't find an issue to fire up the electorate about.

Gay marriage (reference the "approval chart" above) had the support of only 27 percent of Americans. All those "disapprovers" would have come out in force and they could very well have shifted the dynamic.

[LostOne4Ever]

43. You didn't provide facts to Clinton losing, you provided opinions and are treating them as facts.

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 07:30 AM - Edit history (2)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]No where in your article does it ever provide so much as one fact to prove Clinton would have lost. The only facts it states are the history of DADT.

There are no "facts" to prove that Clinton would have lost the election on DOMA, and that I the reason I made the comment about a crystal ball, to point that out.

It is just speculation on your part and the part of your article. [/font]

It is obvious to even the most naive student of political science that a shit-flinging contest about how Clinton was "pro-gay marriage" -- at a time when support for gay marriage was under thirty percent--might have gotten out the vote. That could have been ginned up as a dramatic, rallying issue in no time at all. The word would have gone forth from every church in the land, Clinton would have been accused of endangering children and all manner of horrors.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=indigo]No it is not or you would have actual evidence to prove your point. Anti-abortion supporters have been under 50% for years and people still vote for those candidates.

Which brings up the big assumption in your 30% statistic. You assume that just because Gay marriage was polling at 30% (I am not going to bother fact checking for the exact number) that means that all of those who opposed it considered it a make or break issue. Further, you assume they couldn't be pursuaded to change their mind. What if it had become an issue in 1996 and instead of running from it Clinton embraced it and changed minds? What if it became a strength and his support sped up LGBTQ acceptance by nearly 20 years?

Neither you or I know how that might have gone down. It is an opportunity that passed and that we can never redo and see what the results would have been. The best we can do is look at history and to my knowledge no ONE issue has ever caused a 8% change in votes. Especially 8% from Clinton to Dole alone. That is almost the entirety of Ross Perots support in that election and he had a full plate of issues he was supporting.

I would say it is obvious to even the most naive student of political science that could never happen.

Clinton was always in the lead that election. The idea that one issue would have turned around that trouncing is absurd.[/font]

[MADem]

75. Given that it is impossible to 'prove' a negative, I guess you think you've made your point.

But you haven't. The fact remains that a veto of DOMA would likely have stripped more than eight percent from his lead. The country wasn't feeling it back then. 27% support for marriage equality v. 68% opposed. He would have had his ass handed to him.

And that isn't just "one" issue. That was a Moral Majority/Culture Wars issue of the first order that permeated every aspect of daily life--"think of the children" and all that. Words like "lifestyle" and "choice" were still being bandied about. And it wasn't just "the south" that had a problem with it, either (look at California--quite recently, too; and VT couldn't get past "civil unions" as late as 2006). The only reason the GOP didn't go after Clinton on that issue is because he blocked them from doing it by signing that damn thing and getting onboard with that unholy alliance. He was pragmatic and craven but he was also between a rock and a hard place. There was just no good solution that would have kept him in office.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. He did not shut that conversation down, he delayed it until he was safely out of office, amendment

has been introduced 10 times since then, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2013.


It's amazing to me how many straight people want to lecture about these issues. You claim Bill shut that amendment talk down, but straight people keep pushing that amendment, that's the reality. Not shut down at all. How dare you claim that debate was 'shut down' when we spent the following decade with that hanging over our heads?

[Chitown Kev]

59. I know, right?

ain't all this straight-splaining nerve-wrecking?

[randys1]

76. How do you change your font and type color? Do you type it elsewhere and copy paste it or

is it a pic?

[LostOne4Ever]

78. I use Cascading style sheet tags

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal][font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I have this saved to a word pad and copy and paste it[/font][/font][/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"][font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]YOUR MESSAGE HERE [/font][/font]


[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal][font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The font-family part tells your computer what font family to use. In my case Georgia. If the computer reading your script does not support that script it will display[/font] [font face='Brush Script MT' size=5][font face='Brush Script MT' size=5]Brush Script MT [/font] [/font][font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal], and if not that the oh so hated [/font][font face='comic sans MS' size=4][font face='comic sans MS' size=4]comic sans MS [/font][/font] [font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]font. If none of those work it will then use whatever fantasy font family your computer does support.

The size tells it what size to use and color what color to make the font. You can change[/font] [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson][font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]fonts[/font][/font][font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]multiple times within each other.

If you want to be lazy you could use [/font][font size=5 color=scarlet face='Brush Script MT'][font face='Brush Script MT' size=5 color=scarlet]this[/font][/font] [font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]instead but the font might not be supported by their computer and will default back to the normal script

I highly suggest if you use a font with spaces in it like [/font][font color=scarlet size=4 face='comic sans ms'] Comic Sans MS [/font][/font] [font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]you put apostrophes before and after like this [/font][font size=4 color=scarlet face='comic sans ms'][font size=4 color=scarlet face='comic sans ms']'Comic Sans MS'[/font][/font]

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I also suggest reading these links for more information:[/font][/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=1674
http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp

[font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal][font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] I hope this [/font][font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting MT','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson][font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting MT','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]helped!!![/font][/font][/font] [/font]

Edit:[font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] [font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Yes, I know I used two of the most hated fonts on the internet. But I like them!!![/font][/font]

PS: [font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal][font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] For anyone interested in trying this; just copying my post below the quote and pasting it into a reply and previewing it to see how it looks on your screen[/font][/font]

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]This is my original tutorial here:[/font]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=687750

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]and with that let me wish you:[/font]

[font style="font-family:Chiller,'papyrus','gigi',fantasy;" size=9 color=indigo][b][center][font style="font-family:Chiller,'papyrus','gigi',fantasy;" size=9 color=indigo]
[center]Happy Halloween!!![/center]
[/font][/font][/b][/center]

[LostOne4Ever]

79. This is what copying and pasting the post will look like

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I have this saved to a word pad and copy and paste it[/font]

[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]YOUR MESSAGE HERE [/font]



[font style="font-family:Georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The font-family part tells your computer what font family to use. In my case Georgia. If the computer reading your script does not support that script it will display [font face='Brush Script MT' size=5]Brush Script MT [/font], and if not that the oh so hated [font face='comic sans MS' size=4]comic sans MS [/font] font. If none of those work it will then use whatever fantasy font family your computer does support.

The size tells it what size to use and color what color to make the font. You can change [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]fonts[/font]multiple times within each other.

If you want to be lazy you could use [font size=5 color=scarlet face='Brush Script MT']this[/font] instead but the font might not be supported by their computer and will default back to the normal script

I highly suggest if you use a font with spaces in it like [font color=scarlet size=4 face='comic sans ms'] Comic Sans MS [/font] you put apostrophes before and after like this [font size=4 color=scarlet face='comic sans ms']'Comic Sans MS'[/font]

I also suggest reading these links for more information:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=1674
http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp

[font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] I hope this [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Lucida handwriting MT','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]helped!!![/font][/font]

Edit:[font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] Yes, I know I used two of the most hated fonts on the internet. But I like them!!![/font]

PS: [font style="font-family:georgia,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] For anyone interested in trying this; just copying my post below the quote and pasting it into a reply and previewing it to see how it looks on your screen[/font]

This is my original tutorial here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=687750

and with that let me wish you:

[font style="font-family:Chiller,'papyrus','gigi',fantasy;" size=9 color=indigo][center]
Happy Halloween!!!

[/font][/center]

[LostOne4Ever]

82. A couple more useful links

[font style="font-family:'georgia',fantasy;" size=6 color='indigo']For HTML codes:[/font]

http://www.ascii.cl/htmlcodes.htm

[font style="font-family:'georgia',fantasy;" size=6 color='indigo']For a list of colors:[/font]

http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_colornames.asp

[randys1]

83. Thanks, looks like a lot of work, but it is easier to read, for sure.

[In_The_Wind]

85. Bookmarking this for when I need a splash of color in my post.

[font style="font-family:Chiller,'papyrus','gigi',fantasy;" size=9 color=green][center] Thank you[/font][/center]

[cprise]

18. He could have let it pass without signing, wanted a popularity boost instead. n/t

[MADem]

22. No, he could not have. At least read the links before you comment.

Bob Dole would have gone at him hammer and tongs and raked him over the coals. The country wasn't backing gay marriage back then--it was a losing issue. I think only thirty percent of the country approved of, or even tolerated, the idea of gay marriage. Most people were opposed, though some (blue staters) could 'abide' the idea of civil unions.

It wasn't the "Ho hum, so what" issue that it is today.

Bob Dole was the first co-sponsor of DOMA. He had the (cough) "high ground" on this issue. Clinton signing it neutralized his advantage.

[cprise]

32. I suppose DADT *and* the post-election homophobe piety were also

to head off Bob Dole at the poles in 1996??

Sorry.

[MADem]

36. The Poles? What do they have to do with this?

DADT happened in 1993, right before Xmas, well before the re-election campaign, BEFORE the DOMA fight.

You've got your timeline all screwed up. 'Sorry.'

DADT was a compromise to full inclusion of gays in the military. Clinton didn't have the backing at DOD to make that work--the military Services were working the issue up to the moment that he pulled the rug out, though. Had he been able to make that happen, we could have been ready.

[cprise]

40. Election polls. DADT wasn't linked to them.

So no excuse there.

[MADem]

42. Unnnh...DADT happened YEARS earlier. Your facts are out of order.

One more time, since you missed it the first time I told you:

DADT happened in 1993.

DOMA happened in 1996.

[cprise]

44. Which undermines YOUR case

The commonality is a pattern of anti-gay laws from the Clintons.

[MADem]

45. That makes no sense, either. It's just not accurate. "The Clintons?" Good grief. They aren't

a King and Queen.


DADT was not an "anti-gay law." It was the best B. Clinton could do after he got pushback from the Pentagon. It was a compromise worked out between the WH and senior military leadership.

And it wasn't a law, either.

It was a DOD directive (Department of Defense Directive 1304.26, to be precise).



This conversation is non-productive.

[cprise]

46. In the 90s they repeatedly and explicity sold themselves as a "team",

"two for the price of one".

Elizabeth Warren: "You could hear skidmarks in the halls when she got back (to the White House)" after Hillary changed her mind.

Hillary is also known to have, among other things, urged Bill to push through welfare-to-work.

Of course, healthcare was her marquee humanitarian cause; Very high profile.

She is widely known to have had a kind of veto power on the cabinet. Anyone she did not like had to go.

Politically they have always been a team at least until 2000. But you know, the amnesia and denial is always a sweet touch to these conversations.


"wasn't a law" - talk about pedantic.

[MADem]

47. It's not PEDANTIC to note that a military instruction is not a law. That's something called a FACT.

A law requires passage by a legislature and is signed into law by a chief executive. The law that kept gays from serving was the UCMJ, which was approved by Congress and signed by the Commander in Chief (at the time, the version that was operative was signed by Truman).

If you recall, the legislature wasn't very nice to Bill Clinton during much of his tenure. His relationship with them was often very adversarial.

For that reason, he worked this issue directly with his SECDEF and senior military leadership. The Congress wasn't ready to approve lifting the ban; the best compromise available was Don't Ask/Don't Tell/Don't Pursue.


The rest of your post is just rambling and gossipy. You have something you're insinuating (with a single quote mark) is from Elizabeth Warren, without attribution, along with passive and unattributed comments about what H. Clinton "is known" to have had/done.

It's apparent you are not speaking from a place free of bias, and your dislike for the former SECSTATE is apparent.

[cprise]

64. Oh "instruction not law", Pu-pu-pidoop!

"If you recall, the legislature wasn't very nice to Bill Clinton during much of his tenure. His relationship with them was often very adversarial."

Yes. As I recall, almost as soon as he further deregulated the media and a new wave of mega-mergers were under way, those media became very cooperative with Republicans who pistol-whipped him with scandals (both petty and fabricated) for the rest of his co-Presidency.

And I just can't wait for the Clinton/Republican ThirdWay/FarRight circus to come back to Washington and return us to levels of gridlock even worse than what we've got now.

But I digress. Let's all have a moment of quiet thanks for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

[MADem]

72. You have travelled a long way from the thread topic in order to deliver a

bit of ineffectual snark. You should rest. You must be exhausted.



"But I digress."

That's the understatement of the year.

[ieoeja]

73. I really hate to defend the Clintons. But a lot of DUers are completely back asswards on DADT.

Pre-DADT, if the military discovered you were gay, you would be discharged from service.

During-DADT, if the military discovered you were gay, you could continue in service as long as you refused to admit it.

Everybody I knew in the gay community thought DADT was a baby step forward. Maybe the professional activist crowd saw it as, "not good enough, Bill and Hillary". But it was celebrated as a victory by the community at large.

Unfortunately, it caused a homophobic backlash within military ranks. So while it was progress on the legal front, it ended up causing a lot of personal distress for gays in the military. What everybody thought would make their lives better ended up making them worse. Unintended consequences and all that.


Now DOMA was simply putting politics and personal ambition ahead of the LGBT community. Whatever they may personally feel about LGBT, the Clintons have proven themselves ready and willing and able to sell them out in an instance.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Until what year did Clinton defend DOMA?

Or are you saying that being a weathervane is the right thing to do?

[BlueStateLib]

7. Amicus brief from Senators Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle and Chris Dodd, Alan Simpson

Sorry, Bernie: DOMA Really Was a Defensive Action Against a Possible Constitutional Amendment

A March 1st 2013 Supreme Court amicus brief from former Democratic Senators Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle and Chris Dodd, as well as former Republican Senator Alan Simpson. There's some good overall background on DOMA from their perspective as 1996 lawmakers if you feel like reading the whole thing, but here is the relevant section: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/windsor-v-united-states/amicus-brief-of-former-senators-who-voted-for-doma.pdf

The statute enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but the reasons for that support varied widely. Some supported DOMA even while staunchly opposing discrimination against gays in employment, adoption, military service, and other spheres. Some believed that DOMA was necessary to allay fears that a single state’s recognition of same-sex marriage could automatically extend to all other states through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And they believed that enacting DOMA would eliminate the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage—an outcome that would have terminated any further debate about same-sex marriage, potentially for generations. At the same time, even for many who generally opposed sexual orientation discrimination, the traditional conception of marriage was so engrained that it was difficult to see the true nature of the discrimination DOMA wrought.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/27/1440473/-Sorry-Bernie-DOMA-Really-Was-a-Defensive-Action-Against-a-Possible-Constitutional-Amendment#

[Chitown Kev]

8. And they failed.

And they believed that enacting DOMA would eliminate the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage—an outcome that would have terminated any further debate about same-sex marriage, potentially for generations.

It DID come about anyway...those attempts at a Constitutional amendment failed but they tried it anyway.

Plus, this was 2013. Better to go back to more of the discussion in 1996 (that's not to say that it wasn't mentioned here and there...but Secretary Clinton's statements to Rachel Maddow placed that possibility front and center and NO OTHER rationale).

[BlueStateLib]

17. 2013 amicus brief from people that were part of the 1996 doma debate should know

Paul Wellstone even voted for it

[Chitown Kev]

21. Easy to do an amicus brief to CYA

17 years later.

I'll go look in the CR.

[merrily]

29. Exactly. And I made my post before I read yours.

By then, most of those "distinguished gentlemen" didn't even have to worry about re-election.

"Veto proof majority" and "I was only trying to stave off a constitutional amendment" are two well worn Clinton excuses for bad legislation. Neither rings true or stands up to the facts operative at the time.

[Bohunk68]

48. That's my take on it as well.

A man who couldn't admit he got a BJ. Gee, so much moral courage, it just makes ones head spin.

[merrily]

28. A cover story is not necessarily reality.

What the hell i a brief filed in the Windsor case, years after the DOMA vote, supposed to prove again?

[Chitown Kev]

65. Daschle and Co.

Cite no footnotes of any 1996 documentation to back their claim.

Why shouldn't I believe that they were pulling this out of their ass?

[Armstead]

38. Family Values, Dick Morris, Triangulation, School Uniforms, VChips,

That was what that election was about for the Clintons

Anything outside of that rigid mold was radioactive.

[jfern]

77. By far the most right-wing campaign a Democrat ran since at least 1924

[Florencenj2point0]

49. funny.... every single LGTB person I know

is not only supporting Hillary, but is organizing and raising money for her.

[merrily]

51. Not the ones I know!

[Hepburn]

56. Meet my gay housekeeper -- he hates Hillary

Now you know of someone who is gay and would not vote for her if she were the only one running for Prez.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. I'm gay and I know one gay Hillary supporter. The rest are for Bernie, one or two with great

involvement....and since that is my community I am drawing from a large pool of persons. All of us would agree that it is always annoying to hear about what some straight person's gay friends are doing as if that meant something.

[bigwillq]

50. Hillary just needs to stop. Period.

Lol

[LexVegas]

52. It just pisses some people off that the vast majority of minorities love them some Hillary. nt

[Chitown Kev]

55. Trust me...

as a black gay man, I "get" it and Bernie Sanders still have a set of questions of his own to answer for me...he han't made his case yrt, either.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. What bothers me is the lack of respect for and accurate recounting of the history of those times.

The straight folks who see all of this as about candidates look creepy, both sides. Hearing the way you all talk about DOMA makes me realize that if we don't push for the full ticket now, we will be sold down the river again like we were with DOMA because Hillary is still bullshitting about DOMA for no good reason.

Over 30,000 Americans died of AIDS in 1996. This is never mentioned by the straights on either side. Why? Because they don't even remember. They have forgotten, so they walk into a field of memorials and mourners and start yapping about who started planning the weddings first. It's gauche, to say the least.

[Chitown Kev]

62. +10

Yes, all the straight people trying to get us told about OUR lives bothers the fuck out of me...it bothered me early in the Obama administration as well.

What really bothers me, though, is that if Hillary wants to continue to peddle this bullshit 20 years later, what else is she willing to peddle bullshit about?

I mean, all politicians (even Sanders) peddle bullshit and even triangulate to varying degrees but that seems to be the ONLY way that the Clintons know how to do politics.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. I'm also puzzled by her need to do the bullshit, I could craft many answers for her that would have

skipped all of that nonsense. She tries to explain it all away when she'd be much better off giving the context of the times and direct blame for DOMA to the Republicans who introduced it as weaponized legislation. She goes straight to bullshit when there are many rhetorical routes that would serve her much better while being far more accurate.
But on DU some who are very critical of her over DOMA adore others who voted for DOMA and some even defend Reagan and his voters. Those posters are just exploiting the issue and that really cheeses me off.

[Chitown Kev]

67. Be honest about it...I mean

activists that remember the times won't lie and the gay blogs will light up with vitriol for a day or two on that subject and then you put it behind you.

This wasn't even necessary.

[portlander23]

53. Yep

[CharlotteVale]

63. K&R

[FlatBaroque]

68. Congenital liars. nt

[ismnotwasm]

69. God that's a sad read

Agree or disagree with the analysis, and I don't agree with it completly, it's sad and horrible the way political stategy played with people's lives-- which is what the politics behind all this amounts too. If I flip the script--what would have happened if Clinton had said "Gay Marriage is a human right"? Would the momentum toward equality happened faster? I certainly hope it would have. But I doubt it. At least it would have been stated by a privledged person in power.

And, stategy or not, it didn't work--we ended up with a Republican president and congress anyway. The demented tea-party took over any lingering sanity Republicans have.

Progress was set back for social justice decades--Obama repealing the global gag rule was a happy, happy day for me. I attend my cousins wedding in less than a week-another joyous day, as she and her finance have been together for years.

[Chitown Kev]

70. that and

we ended up with a Republican president and congress anyway.

We ended up with multiple attempts to write LGBT marriage discrimination into the federal Constitution.

[ismnotwasm]

71. Yes indeed

I'm no blind follower--I'm glad we've arrived as far as we've had, but that doesn't make the journey any more palatable.

[Prism]

74. Good post, solid source

I just caught wind of Clinton's words this morning.

Fucking appalling.