Clinton adviser on GLBT issues offers tips to President Obama on gay issues:

[Bluebear]

By Richard Socarides
Saturday, May 2, 2009

(The writer, a lawyer in New York, served on the White House staff from 1993 to 1999, including three years as special assistant to President Bill Clinton.)

In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither...

Here is what Obama should do to seize this opportunity:

First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign. What made Clinton such a transformational figure of inclusion was his constant willingness to talk to and about gay people. When he said, "I have a vision and you are a part of it," you could feel his sincerity.

As president, Obama barely mentions gay and lesbian Americans. During his first 100 days, he has done so only while defending his selection of inauguration speakers. He was silent after the announcement of the Iowa decision -- one of the most important gay civil rights victories ever.

Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.

Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement...

Gay voters who supported Barack Obama remain positive about him, and most are prepared to be patient. It's still early on gay rights for the Obama administration -- but now is the time to act boldly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050103401_2.html?sid=ST2009050103435

[muffin1]

1. I hope he follows the advice.

Many gay people I know are starting to lose patience. They are still (mostly) positive in their assessment of President Obama, but would like to see SOME movement in the direction of equal rights.
I am constantly talking down my best friend who got really involved this election cycle. And my friend is right...Obama is riding high atop the popularity wave, we have strong majorities in both house...it's time to move!!!

[MADem]

2. Hate crime legislation is a really good first step.

It can serve as a wedge against DOMA. If you can crack DOMA and make it go away, then you can repeal DADT and simply remove any "orientation" restrictions from military service.

However, as I've pointed out in other posts, DOMA and DADT are--like it or not--intertwined. Why? Because of the "benefits" issue. Right now, the military provides married people with more benefits than single people. They get more pay, they get better housing, they get transportation for their dependents to new duty stations--all these things have value. They get a "separation allowance" too, when they have to be away from their families.

Right now, gays are not permitted to "act on" their orientation and they agree to that in the service contract. It's all a big lie, of course, and the don't asking/don't telling is the biggest bit of the big lie. But you can't get rid of DADT without FIRST getting rid of DOMA, because you'd be discriminating against gay military people who were married in that case, who would not get the "married" military (federal) benefits, because DOMA doesn't recognize same gender marriage at the federal level.

Hate crime legislation opens the door to the whole "discrimination" discussion. And discrimination arguments are the way to knock down DOMA and DADT.

[yardwork]

11. I think that this is an ideal time to repeal DADT framed as military readiness.

DADT is not about "fairness." It's about military readiness, which we aren't. The U.S. military is exhausted and depleted after nearly a decade of war, and recruitment is very difficult. This is the perfect time for Obama to go on national TV and tell the country that it is essential that not turn away qualified recruits, or drum out qualified military personnel, over a matter of identity.

We desperately need expert people to serve in the military. Turning away thousands of people who want to serve, while lowering recruitment standards for everybody else in a desperate effort to fill the ranks, makes no sense.

Perfect window of opportunity to repeal DADT. Not even a gay issue.

[MADem]

20. You have to unload DOMA first, though.

Otherwise, if you just dump DADT, you're in the position of sanctioning discrimination at the federal level.

Right now, it's a convoluted mess. So long as no one asks or tells, AND gay people in uniform don't "act on their orientation," (most people don't realize that part), it's "merrily we roll along." However, if you dump DADT, and leave DOMA in place, then you've got two tiers of military members--those who are "allowed" to get married, and have their family members receive federal benefits (an ID card, exchange and commissary benefits, married housing, transportation for dependents, family services, command sponsorship at overseas assignments, military medical and dental care--just for starters), and those who are NOT allowed to get married.

What's the first thing that will happen if DADT goes out the window? Someone will push the envelope and sue for equality, as they have every right to do. And what will happen then? The case will meander all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm just not confident that this Supreme Court has the correct attitude towards this issue. I think we need to get rid of DOMA first, then DADT, and move on smartly. Both can happen just by Congress saying "Enough!" and Obama signing a piece of paper.

It's a better and more sure way to do it, rather than involving the Supremes--I simply don't trust them.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Some of the statements in this opinion column are disingenuous and easily disproved. (links -->)

"Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement..."

Really? Here's are the facts:

LiberalOC.com: Obama Appoints LGBT Activist as White House Liaison

Think Progress: Obama selects Brad Kiley to oversee salaries, budgeting - highest ranking LGBT appointment in the WH

Obama appointments to cabinet, transition team good sign for LGBT community

GayPolitics.com: Obama hires LGBT Presidential Appointments Project leader

Seattle Gay News: http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews36_48/page1.cfm">Obama appointments good news for LGBT


"We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination."

No shit, thanks to his former boss, who also passed the discriminatory DOMA. But let's forget all about that and complain
about what Pres. Obama has to do (to clean up after Bubba's mistakes) by all means, because no matter what he has done
so far in 104 days, Pres. Obama has not done enough.

Sure Pres. Obama should listen to a Clinton GLBT advisor on what to do. After all, those advisors did such a great job
advising Bubba re: DADT and DOMA, right? :eyes:

[DURHAM D]

4. You are so tedious ... n/t

You forgot your oh so irritating fire-breathing dragon.

[ClarkUSA]

5. Guess facts are tedious for you, eh?

[DURHAM D]

6. They aren't facts -

just your limited color pallet.

[ClarkUSA]

7. Then disprove the myriad linked evidence I've provided instead of attacking the messenger.

[Bluebear]

12. "Bubba" - how tres, tres right wing. nt

[ClarkUSA]

14. A Google search disproves your opinion, too. The reference enjoys widespread usage. (link --->)

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bubba+Bill+Clinton&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Bluebear]

23. Google all you want. I have never heard anybody here call Clinton "Bubba".

Whatever.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Really? I have.

In fact, I learned the nickname only after I got here.

[Bluebear]

25. I doubt it. In any case, plenty of people call President Obama "Barry Hussein" too.

So it must be OK! Google it!!!!11 In any case, what is your purpose in this thread? To say that "enough" has been done gays, per all your colorful links? What's your agenda?

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

28. lol! Really? I doubt you can provide proof of that of the caliber that I did for "Bubba"

In any case, what is your purpose in this thread?

The same as anyone else's on this thread.


To say that "enough" has been done gays, per all your colorful links?

What a ridiculous notion. Just how did you concoct that laughable fallacy? :tinfoilhat:


What's your agenda?

I have none. What's yours?

[Bluebear]

36. My agenda is equality. Your links point to "good news", "hope" & "appointments".

In any case, you came in here to praise and head off your preceived criticism of Obama, even though the article is not damning him, rather pointing out ideas which would be helpful at this time. You certainly did not stop by to uplift the gay and lesbian constituency. Right?

[ClarkUSA]

40. Really? You seem to be biased. BTW, most of my links are from GLBT news sources and websites.

Your hostile bias reveals itself in your consistent attempts to demonize me with baseless personal ad hominem attacks;
for what end, I don't know. It appears my detailed evidentiary proof that some of the Clinton advisor's basic assertions
are not factual has rubbed you the wrong way. One has to wonder why... but no amount of grousing is going to change
the facts.

[dsc]

13. several things

One, the people mentioned in regards to Clinton were friends not just appointees. There is no evidence that Obama has gay friends. Now maybe that doesn't make a difference but much evidence suggests it does make a difference. On DADT it is nothing short of a bald faced, right wing inspired lie, that Bill Clinton is responsible for DADT. Sodomy was then, and likely still is, against the military code of conduct which takes Congress to change. Thanks to right wing people like Colin Powell and Sam Nunn that became an impossiblity. Clinton tried but sadly got beaten on changing the policy thanks to right wing anti gay zealots who now, just like you, lie and blame Bill Clinton. Finally, Clinton did try for us, Obama so far, not so much.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Okay.

One, the people mentioned in regards to Clinton were friends not just appointees. There is no evidence that Obama has gay friends. Now maybe that doesn't make a difference but much evidence suggests it does make a difference.

Then you might find this 2008 Blade article interesting:

A gay mentor to a younger Barack Obama and a gay friend of John McCain have both spoken about their relationships to the two presidential candidates; more telling, however, is that fact that Obama has spoken openly about the gay university professor who encouraged him as a minority student... A Sept. 10 article in the Washington Blade detailed how Obama, during his student days in Los Angeles at Occidental College, found openly gay professor Lawrence Goldyn to be a positive figure.

Goldyn was, at the time, a professor of political science, the Blade reported, and Obama’s fledgling interest in politics may have been stoked by the supportive atmosphere in which Larence met with minority students at the college to discuss social and political topics.

The Blade quoted Goldyn as saying of Obama, "He was one of those unusual, straight young men who was secure enough in his sexuality that he was not fearful of being associated with me, whether that involved taking a class or just talking socially."

Obama had mentioned Goldyn in an interview with the Advocate last spring, saying that Goldyn was "a wonderful guy" and a "strong influence" in the candidate’s views on GLBT Americans... "He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come into contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with... his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues."

Goldyn, in turn, consented to speak with the Blade about Obama... Said Goldyn of Obama, "He was remarkable in that he was not intimidated by a publicly gay figure and, in fact, was interested in learning from me, whether formally or informally... That required an extraordinary kind of confidence in an 18 or 19 year old--the kind that comes from somewhere deep inside, that was still finding its way into his adult personality... He demonstrated a kind of social courage, which has served him well and helped get him where he is today."

Goldyn stood out at Occidental for being openly gay, and he served as a positive role model, the Blade reported; Goldyn not only took the trouble to mentor gay students, but also attracted heterosexual minority students with his extracurricular discussions, the article said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "On DADT it is nothing short of a bald faced, right wing inspired lie, that Bill Clinton is responsible for DADT. Sodomy was then, and likely still is, against the military code of conduct which takes Congress to change. Thanks to right wing people like Colin Powell and Sam Nunn that became an impossiblity. Clinton tried but sadly got beaten on changing the policy thanks to right wing anti gay zealots who now, just like you, lie and blame Bill Clinton."

So the baddies in Congress and meanies in the military forced him to sign DADT? He was powerless to say, "No"? Sorry, the buck stops right at Pres. Clinton's signature. Many don't subscribe to the "poor put upon Bill" revisionist history. For example:

Clinton's legacy among gays and lesbians is dubious at best. While the former President enjoys a lot of popular support in the gay & lesbian community, as President, he was responsible for enacting two of the most damaging policies against the LGBT community, namely, Don't Ask-Don't Tell and The Defense of Marriage Act. He's defended those decisions as being necessary compromises, but no matter how he or his spokespeople try to parse it, his decision to violate the Manchester Hyatt boycott reeks of opportunism and greed.

When passing the "Don't ask, don't tell" bill, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, who was brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice), leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse". The introduction of "Don't ask, don't tell" with the later amendment of "don't pursue, don't harass" has officially prohibited such behavior, but reports suggest that such harassment continues.

Instead, following the lead of the military commanders, President Clinton announced a different compromise: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue."

It was 15 years ago, Tuesday, that President Clinton rolled out the policy that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which relaxed the long-standing bar against gay men and women serving in the U.S. military. While the move was initially hailed as progress for the rights of gays in the military, today many see it as a liability.

Her Navy career had been "relatively stress-free" before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" took effect, says Joan Darrah, a retired captain, and a lesbian, who served in various intelligence billets from 1972 to 2002. She kept her sexual orientation secret during her career, but that denial took its toll after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" led to increased focus on homosexuality in the ranks.

[dsc]

19. There was one and only one alternative to DADT

and that was the then current outright ban on gays in the military. It is a right wing lie to suggest anything else. The simple fact is that thousands and thousands of gays were being persued in the ranks before don't ask don't tell was instituted. Read Conduct unbecoming if you don't believe me. I am not going to accuse the lesbian intelligence officer of lying but her experience is flat out not the usual one. The whole, entire reason gays in the military came up was the summary tossing out of soldiers who had fought in the first Iraq war. Again, some of us are old enough to remember what happened. We can't be lied to without knowing it.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Do you have credible evidence for this opinion?

I'm not one to rely on an anonymous other's personal opinion when it comes to legislative matters.

[dsc]

33. It isn't opinion that sodomy was against the UMCJ

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-125.htm

The above is the link which states as much. In case you don't have a clue sodomy is the legal name for pretty much every homosexual sex act. I hope that is good enough.

The simple fact is the President isn't a dictator. He doesn't get to nullify laws. The law pre existed Bill Clinton's birth let alone his election.

http://www.doaskdotell.com/movies/vgaymil.htm

And here is a link to a synopsis of a history channel piece. Now that I did your homework, maybe, just maybe you will stop spreading right wing lies.

[ClarkUSA]

41. That's not the opinion I wanted proof of.

You said, "There was one and only one alternative to DADT and that was the then current outright ban on gays in the military."
What proof do you have of this?

I am not spreading right wing lies (many of my sources are not only credible but are from GLBT news sources and websites).
I'm just not into Clintonion revisionism and neither are the folks at queerty.com.

[dsc]

44. Unless you were going to assassinate the part of Congress that was unwilling to change the sodomy

law, declare martial law, or decide which laws would and wouldn't be enforced (does that sound just a little familiar) then there were no other alternatives. Congress, thanks to Sam Nunn and others was hell bent on there not being open gays in the military. It should be noted that even now there are highly placed Democrats in Congress who are against ending DADT (Ike Skelton to name one).

On edit there are right wing gays (log cabin republicans for instance) and to name one pretty important example the editor of the Washington Blade was a right winger who went so far as to hire Jeff Gannon.

[ClarkUSA]

46. Okay. So you have no proof. It's your opinion.

We all have them. You know mine.

[dsc]

47. As usual you didn't bother to read the links I spent time actually finding

Here, from the link I provided, at your insistance.

The video continues with a history of the 1993 debate, leading to the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” “compromise” (the phrase written by Northwestern University military sociology professor Charles Moskos on a memo to be delivered up to the administration). This section of the film played out for me as if I were reliving scattered moments in a few of the most creative years of my own life. Benecke describes military brass as “apoplectic” about Clinton’s campaign promise to lift the ban, once they suddenly realized he really wanted to fulfill it. Senator Sam Nunn would actually hide behind the idea of violence against gays, and Colin Powell would reportedly threaten to resign. Keith Meinhold, whose story straddles the two versions of the ban, is shown proudly striding out of his US-flag draped Palo Alto home, almost as if doing a screen test. Congress would codify DADT into law at the end of 1993; and the idea of “Don’t Ask” would mislead servicemembers into believing that the policy was somehow more lenient, while discharges would increase. Nicole Galvin would be drummed out of West Point, while Timothy McVeigh (#2) would be identified by AOL as the author of a profile that identified him as “gay.” (The video does not go into the fact that an Internet profile or web site is “published” or cover the privacy law controversies over ISP’s identifying anonymous posters as a result of subpoenas from either government or civil suits.)

I don't know a clearer version of language to state exactly whose fault DADT was.

[ClarkUSA]

48. One guy's opinion in a History movie segment is your sum proof? Even he isn't saying what you are.

What's funny is Pres. Obama is being criticized for not cleaning up Clinton's DADT and DOMA mistakes
fast enough after 105 days in office. How long into Clinton's term did it take to pass DOMA and DADT
with a Democratic majority? And it's not as if Pres. Obama hasn't been a little busy lately.

Why didn't Clinton go to the wall? Why didn't he insist on lifting the ban? Why didn't he twist arms?
Why did he sign DOMA, too? Look, the truth is President Clinton was all too happy to compromise.
Remember, his advisor was Dick "triangulate, triangulate, triangulate" Morris at the time. Why does
Clinton rate a pass that no one here would ever give to Pres. Obama if he was subjected to the same
pressures and decided not to attempt a repeal of DOMA and DADT during his presidency.

Like I said, I'm not into Clintonian revisionism. IMO, the buck always stops at the President's signing
desk.

[dsc]

49. The reason we can't agree is that you either are ignorant of history

or choose to lie about it. DOMA was passed BY A GOP CONGRESS, that isn't MY OPINION, it is a FACT. DOMA was passed in 1996 which was over a year after the GOP TOOK OVER. Clinton attempted to overturn the outright ban on gays in January of 1993 which was less than a dozen days into his term. Now I am sure you will call this opinion too but they aren't.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Um, now you are overlooking the facts of what I said.

DOMA passed the Senate 85-14, receiving a majority of Democratic support. That is a fact. And
Clinton didn't go to the wall but instead compromised. As for DADT, he decided to compromise,
too. But it's obvious that you'll always give a pass to Clinton that you'd never give to Pres. Obama
if he were to be subjected to similar political pressures. That's really the reason why we disagree.

Again, what's funny is Pres. Obama is being criticized for not cleaning up Clinton's DADT and DOMA
mistakes fast enough after 105 days in office during the worst economic collapse since the Great
Depression. Give me and him a fucking break.

[dsc]

51. It has been 16 years since Clinton took office

and those 16 years have seen a huge shift in gay rights. When Clinton took office no gay issue had a majority. Now all but gay marriage does. To compare Obama to Clinton is the equivalent of comparing Johnson to Truman on civil rights and bluntly speaking the difference between Johnson and Truman is vastly more than the difference between Obama and Clinton on gay rights.

[ClarkUSA]

52. I don't agree with the entirety of your opinion.

But it doesn't matter, does it? Like I said, I'm not buying into Clintonian revisionism on DADT and DOMA.

[ruggerson]

53. You're in WAY over your head on this one, Bubba

Your links aren't evidence, they are laughable opinion. You are obviously completely unfamiliar with what happened re DADT. I have never, and will never defend Clinton on DOMA - he bailed on that one. He should have vetoed it and let Congress override him, but he did not have the courage to do so, more than likely because Dick Morris was reminding him of the DADT debacle.

Conversely, Clinton went balls to the wall for the gay community trying to get the military ban lifted in 1993, but ran into huge institutional homophobia. The problem was that Nunn and Powell and others threatened that if he issued an executive order, they would retaliate with legislation, codifying a full ban into statutory law (the ban was merely military code at the time). Clinton, under enormous media and public pressure, then negotiated with them and the result was the law we know as Don't Ask Don't Tell. His intent was good and decent and right. His political skills in tackling such a contentious issue were sorely lacking - he didn't lay the proper groundwork or privately grease the right wheels before acting.

His historical report card regarding gays and lesbians is mixed - it is not black and white as you suggest. Your problem is that you come to this with an agenda (anything and everything Clinton is terrible)and then try to fit various pseudo opinion pieces into your already preconceived agenda of Clinton hatred. That is neither intellectually honest nor valuable analysis. It's just internet message board dreck.

I'm willing to give Obama a shot on gay issues. I think he tends to be cautious politically regarding these issues, not courageous, and I wasn't thrilled with the White House's press release in regards to the historic Iowa SC decision. But, conversely, I'm glad that he's made an effort with some sub cabinet positions - and he talks a good talk. Whether he walks the walk remains to be seen. I will be the first to give him major props when and if that occurs.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Your opinion re: Bubba is heard w/as much respect as you've given mine, only I've provided evidence.

Relying on that tired "Clinton hatred" red herring may provide you a convenient way for you to dismiss my well-sourced
evidence, but the fact remains that many folks besides I don't buy into Clintonian revisionism into DADT and DOMA.
Attacking and insulting others for having a different opinion than yourself is a poor way to convince others, which is why
I remain unconvinced and unwilling to reply further to you.

[ruggerson]

55. I'm terribly bereaved

that you won't be responding to me, but I will attempt to survive.

And your "evidence" is about as related to the truth as the Illuminati.

Stick to things you actually know about.

[ClarkUSA]

61. Your childish taunts are further evidence of your lack of substantive debate.

I quoted multiple GLBT sources, as well as hard news sources while your opinion is just that, opinion. Who are you to decree that
what I know is less valid than what you know? Also, are you saying that the opinions of GLBT advocates as sourced via many of
my linked quotes are somehow less of the "truth" than your opinion?

[ruggerson]

63. I thought you weren't going to respond to me

and I'm curious. Why do you go back and edit almost every post you write on DU?

[TankLV]

43. IT'S NOT "OPINION" BUT - FACT!!!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snowdays]

9. LOL==and have you seen post # 8?

[yardwork]

10. It's a matter of opinion on whether they are "high profile" or not.

High profile or not, there's been no improvement in policy.

[Jamastiene]

31. So, you are saying the OUTRIGHT BAN on gays in the military

was better than DADT? That is what is was before DADT. President Clinton might have made a huge mistake compromising on the ban on gays in the military, but at least he tried. Ultimately, many of us will always remember that, because he was the first and only one who ever did.

[snowdays]

8. Whitehouse.gov Backs Down on Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell......have

you see this?


If you go to the link the changed parts are highlighted in different colors and easy to see.

At the bottom of the article, it also explains this Tracker tool. Niffy Toast

http://www.propublica.org/article/whitehouse.gov-backs-down-on-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-501



Whitehouse.gov Backs Down on Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
by Brian Boyer, ProPublica - May 1, 2009 3:47 pm EDT




May 1: This post has been updated <1>.

Update, May 2: Friday night, Whitehouse.gov reinserted language <2> saying President Obama supports the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The specific language: "He supports repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and national security."



A subtle but substantive change in the president's position on "don't ask don't tell" was noticed today by our watchful eye-on-the-administration tool, ChangeTracker <3>. An edit to the civil rights issues page <4> tells the tale.


<4>

Previously, the message was clear. As of two days ago, whitehouse.gov said, "We need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy." The new version of the page says that the president "supports changing Don't Ask Don't Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

In January, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy?" Gibbs proudly gave a one-word answer <5>, "Yes.”

In March, Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to back away from that stance <6>. When asked by Fox News about "don't ask don't tell," he said, "I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now."

The latest changes on whitehouse.gov seem to further that hedge -- and make it the White House position..........

[QC]

16. Sounds like somebody didn't get his pony!

:sarcasm:

[ecstatic]

17. I've never heard Clinton mention gays... except for when he advised

Kerry to throw gays under the bus to win in 2004. :shrug:

[QC]

18. Were you around for the '92 campaign? n/t

[polmaven]

21. You were in the room

when that advice was given, I assume?

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. Bob Shrum was

and he confirms the story

Shrum has more, and different, detail:

"Clinton, Kerry reported at the time, did suggest blunting Bush's appeal to cultural conservatives with a reprise of Clinton's Sister Souljah moment in 1992 when he'd denounced her call for violence against whites -- and done it as conspicuously as possible in front of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.

"Kerry, Clinton ventured, should consider defying Democratic interest groups by endorsing the Bush proposal for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

Shrum reports that "this was a flip-flop too far for Kerry."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/52670/shrum:_bill_clinton_urged_kerry_to_reject_gay_rights_in_%2704/

[polmaven]

26. Ah, Bob Shrum...

An absolutely impeachable source. Have we heard Senator Kerry back up that charge?

[Sebastian Doyle]

27. Would it matter if he did?

If Kerry knocked on your front door and told you the story in person, would you still be in denial that your Lord and Savior Bill Clinton had ever said such a despicable thing?

[polmaven]

37. Y'know...

I never said any such thing about Bill Clinton or any other living person. Because I object to all of the lies and misinformation about DEMOCRATS being so freely spread at a DEMOCRATIC site, does not mean I consider ANYONE to be my "Lord and Savior" except Jesus Christ.

I have been very, very supportive of President Obama since Hillary left the race almost a year ago.

I happen to be from Massachusetts, so Senator Kerry is my Senator, and I was part of his team for re-election last year.

Perhaps it is simply time that you and the others on this board who absolutely despise all things Clinton GET OVER IT and GROW THE FUCK UP already.

[Jamastiene]

30. Wow, it sure didn't take long for the naysayers to come into this thread and

say "Nay." :eyes:

It just kills me how people see President Clinton as an enemy to gay people when he was the one who bothered to fight for us at all in the White House. No one else has since, unfortunately.

I truly wish President Obama had not backed down on DADT and other gay rights issues. He says he is such a "fierce advocate," but frankly, on this issue, I'm not seeing any of that. He's good in so many other ways. Why can he not do something on this? Anything?

[hulklogan]

32. He's just not that into us, I'm afraid.

We'll get the occasional pat on the head and polite mention in appropriate company, but he got what he wanted from us (money and votes) and now we're just a political booty call.

[jonnyblitz]

34. Bill Clinton placed campaign ads on RW christian radio in 1996

when he was running against Bob Dole bragging about passing the Defense of Marraige Act thus he was the true family values guy. I guess I disagree with many here on how wonderful Bill CLinton was for teh gays. :shrug:

[Bluebear]

35. Still, the adviser is giving an opinion about NOW. Some upthread are trying to outbubba each other..

maybe fighting the primaries all over again? Who knows.

[Marrah_G]

38. Same people coming to shit on any gblt related thread.

It's gotten old and predictable.

[polmaven]

39. With all due respect,

It's more like the same people coming to shit on any Clinton related thread. Also very old and very predictable.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Considering Clinton's track record on LGBT issues, I think any advice coming from a Clinton adviser

should be taken with a grain of salt.

Let's not forget it was Bill Clinton that advised John Kerry to throw gays under the bus during his 2004 campaign.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill-clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html

[Bluebear]

56. You just spit up when you see the word "Clinton", don't you?

Did you read the article? Of course you didn't.

[AtomicKitten]

57. I read it. Did you read what I posted? Or do you just spit up when presented with alternate info?

[Bluebear]

58. Yeah, I didn't know you were such a big expert on what the GLBT community should be listening to.

[AtomicKitten]

60. Nothing wrong with hoping the LGBT community gets a better shake from Pres Obama

than they did from Bill Clinton. If you're content with that, mazel tov. I believe this is the next frontier in moving civil rights forward and I hope for much, much better.

[Union Yes]

59. As a gay man, I find this to be good news.

At least someone is advising/advocating that Pres Obama take up gay rights.

I'll remain patient. I understand all that is going on with the economy and 2 wars ect.

[Orsino]

62. Until Obama flip-flops on the question of marriage equality...

...I'm not convinced that his talking more about rights would be very productive. Any interviewer would be able to get fresh sound bites about his support for discrimination.

He could tacitly support equality, though, via appointments.