Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech to the Human Rights Campaign on Friday.
Of course, if your only source of news about Clinton were her Senate or campaign websites, then you would never have known about it.
Clinton aides said no announcement was made because the group’s gathering is traditionally closed to the press. Video of the speech was posted on the group’s Web site.[An HRC executive] said such annual board meetings have always been closed to the press, but it was the first time he could remember that a speech at such a meeting had been made public afterward.
“There’s no contradiction,” he said. “The event is always closed to the press and we wanted to make (the remarks) available for people to see.”
Yeah right. The fact that the HRC meeting was closed to the press in no way precludes Clinton from posting the text of the speech on her website or issuing a press release after the fact. She is deliberating trying to mute the mike when it comes to showing support for gays. Nothing new there.
—
From the speech that dare not speak its name:
Clinton also said she opposes the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband’s presidency.
But not opposed enough to actually sponsor a bill in the Senate to repeal DADT. Go figure.
This is especially obnoxious given:
1. It was her pervert husband who gave us DADT (not to mention federal DOMA).
2. Clinton serves on the Armed Services Committee, where such a bill would be evaluated.
3. Much fanfare was heralded just last week about the House version of such a bill being re-introduced.
There’s a word for ambitious, manipulative, disingenuous females like Hillary Clinton:
(What word did you think I was going to use?)
More thoughts at Good As You, Pam’s House Blend.
—
2 responses so far ↓
Link Brian Miller // Mar 5, 2007 at 4:27 pm
The other interesting thing is the closed-to-the-public nature of HRC's own meetings.
This is a group that claims to represent the entire gay movement — a "nonpartisan lobbying group" — whose board members aren't elected by all paying members, whose leadership is appointed, whose positions on issues are never put up to a popular vote of the membership, and who apparently deigns politicians "too important" for the little people in the GLBT community and gay press to actually interact with (and ask some of the tough questions you've brought up).
Mrs. Clinton's hypocrisy is well known, but here, it's only part of the problem. The real problem today, in my view, is that HRC willingly plays interference for homophobic politicians like Mrs. Clinton — she gets "cred" for "talking to the gays," but the restricted access and carefully orchestrated "nonpartisan" endorsements of "independent HRC" ensures she never has to actually deal with any substantive confrontations over her pathetic record.
The only way to ensure that Republicans and Democrats get confronted on their lousy record on gay rights is to ensure that Libertarians get on the ballot and in the debates. Lib candidates — even if they "never win" (as the old meme goes) — are very likely, in most elections, to point out these inconvenient facts. When it's done in the context of a debate for office, the unpleasant truth cannot be easily expunged from the public record through such duplicitousness as HRC is demonstrating.
Link KipEsquire // Mar 6, 2007 at 11:01 am
Well, I didn't say Clinton was homophobic. Sociopathic, maybe, but not homophobic.
As for the fear of Evangelicals, is the issue that she also fears those Christ-Firsters (i.e., that they will be more likely to come out and vote if she's painted as "too pro-gay")? And gays should therefore just accept that and settle for wink-wink support behind closed doors?
Strategic voting gives me a headache.