Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

Lol at Tim being offended by being pigeon-holed. Talk about irony.

First off amusement and offense are not synonymous. Second, by irony do you mean like rain on your wedding day?

No I meant blatant hypocrisy.

 

[timschochet]

Lol at Tim being offended by being pigeon-holed. Talk about irony.

First off amusement and offense are not synonymous. Second, by irony do you mean like rain on your wedding day?

No I meant blatant hypocrisy.

Ah. OK

 

[timschochet]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

I don't know you Tim....all I can go by is what you present here (same with anyone else I don't know IRL), but I think his "analysis" is a bit more accurate than you want it to be. I'd be lying if there weren't times I've thought pretty close to the same thing.

Well you're wrong, but that's not what I found amusing. It was that Jon feels the need to pigeonhole me at all- or anyone for that matter. One of the reasons that I enjoy this forum is that very few of the posters here can be characterized in a few simplistic sentences. Certainly you can't. I'd like to think that I can't either. Those that can, who are entirely predictable in how they will respond to any issue, are pretty boring and usually not worth the effort of reading what they have to say.

People that see complex problems and come up with simply solutions are the true genius, see e=mc2. Your hatred of the simple is why you always get confused on issues and flop back and forth, ultimately ending up with the elitist big government solution.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

 

[jon_mx]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

I don't know you Tim....all I can go by is what you present here (same with anyone else I don't know IRL), but I think his "analysis" is a bit more accurate than you want it to be. I'd be lying if there weren't times I've thought pretty close to the same thing.

Well you're wrong, but that's not what I found amusing. It was that Jon feels the need to pigeonhole me at all- or anyone for that matter. One of the reasons that I enjoy this forum is that very few of the posters here can be characterized in a few simplistic sentences. Certainly you can't. I'd like to think that I can't either. Those that can, who are entirely predictable in how they will respond to any issue, are pretty boring and usually not worth the effort of reading what they have to say.

People that see complex problems and come up with simply solutions are the true genius, see e=mc2. Your hatred of the simple is why you always get confused on issues and flop back and forth, ultimately ending up with the elitist big government solution.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

It is the essensence of intelligence. You can discuss how complex the origin of life is and be confused by all the species that have existed. Or you can explain it by a rather simple concept of natural selection. You equate simple solutions with stupidity, which in my opinion is extremely ignorant.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Complexity is Corruptions's best friend.

Of course. You want a society with no corruption? Stalinist Russia comes to mind.

Is that a joke? Stalinist USSR was extremely corrupt, to the core.

 

[The Commish]

I think it's good that she has corporate sponsors. But then I don't regard corporations as the great menace to society that apparently some around here do.

Let me guess. You don't remember the conversation about how THIS TIME the donor list was going to be different. That what happened in the past wasn't the case this time. Right?FWIW, I don't have a problem with corporate donations either. It's within the rules. There's nothing I can do about that. But we both know that's not close to the point of knowing who the donors are.

Tim loves the concept of strong centralized power. He does not care whether that power comes from the federal government, multinational corporations, or even world government. It is all good. Tim consistently has blind faith in their superior intellect and believes they will act in the best interests of the people and not out of personal gain. It is a very dangerous belief.

lol. Your analysis of me always cracks me up.

I don't know you Tim....all I can go by is what you present here (same with anyone else I don't know IRL), but I think his "analysis" is a bit more accurate than you want it to be. I'd be lying if there weren't times I've thought pretty close to the same thing.

Well you're wrong, but that's not what I found amusing. It was that Jon feels the need to pigeonhole me at all- or anyone for that matter.One of the reasons that I enjoy this forum is that very few of the posters here can be characterized in a few simplistic sentences. Certainly you can't. I'd like to think that I can't either. Those that can, who are entirely predictable in how they will respond to any issue, are pretty boring and usually not worth the effort of reading what they have to say.

I'm the the first to admit I'm only as good as the data I'm provided. That's all I have to go on And FWIW, I'm not saying his description is all encompassing of you as a poster. It was a comment/nod to how you present yourself in political topics.

 

[The Commish]

And Tim....I will say this about politics, especially domestic politics. Most of the nuance isn't necessary. It's pretty straight forward if you remove all the echo chamber nonsense. I do acknowledge that foreign affairs can be tricky, but they are tricky because of the human element in each, not because it's some difficult subject with a virtually impossible answer. We aren't splitting atoms here. Remove the human element and things get exponentially easier.

 

[timschochet]

Iowa Caucus (PPP)

Clinton 57

Sanders 25

O'Malley 7

The 7% for O'Malley is the first time he's got any number at all- probably a combination of the debate and Biden declaring no interest.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Tim, I can't be 100% sure as I didn't ask but I believe I just had a brief conversation about the set up of the coffee station at this place inside Reagan National with Huma Abedin. Sure did look like her.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I can't be 100% sure as I didn't ask but I believe I just had a brief conversation about the set up of the coffee station at this place inside Reagan National with Huma Abedin. Sure did look like her.

Really? That's awesome.

 

[timschochet]

Just for you Saints:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/5-hillary-scandals-the-media-is-missing/

5 more scandals about Hillary that the media is ignoring.

 

[tommyGunZ]

You know the Conservative party is off the rails when Tim is considered a leftist Hillary backer.

 

[Sand]

Tim, I can't be 100% sure as I didn't ask but I believe I just had a brief conversation about the set up of the coffee station at this place inside Reagan National with Huma Abedin. Sure did look like her.

I've run into all kinds of politicians there. Schumer, King, Sessions (actually sat next to him on the plane). Saw Chris Matthews and others I can't remember. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Still, pretty cool.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just for you Saints:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/5-hillary-scandals-the-media-is-missing/

5 more scandals about Hillary that the media is ignoring.

I don't think the press has missed these. They have been reported by NYT, WaPo and other major journals. You probably are unaware of them because you don't read them.

 

[The Commish]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Iowa Caucus (PPP)

Clinton 57

Sanders 25

O'Malley 7

The 7% for O'Malley is the first time he's got any number at all- probably a combination of the debate and Biden declaring no interest.

This ballgame is over I think. Sanders hasn't explained to people why Hillary shouldn't be president, and there's no Biden to take the top off her numbers and run on behalf of the administration.

 

[timschochet]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

I am.

 

[The Commish]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

I am.

That's what I thought....TGunz struggling with reading comprehension again.

 

[The Commish]

Iowa Caucus (PPP)

Clinton 57

Sanders 25

O'Malley 7

The 7% for O'Malley is the first time he's got any number at all- probably a combination of the debate and Biden declaring no interest.

This ballgame is over I think. Sanders hasn't explained to people why Hillary shouldn't be president, and there's no Biden to take the top off her numbers and run on behalf of the administration.

You know, this may be true, but I am still holding out judgment until after these little "forum" things are done, like the one here this Friday. I don't know how many of these things they are going to have, but the democratic party here in SC appears to be going out of their way to get the candidate messages out there. Perhaps he changes his approach and gets more to the point of comparison in these settings? We'll see.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with Commish. I can't remember a more fluid electorate on both sides as this year. Hillary SHOULD win Iowa, she has a commanding lead, but- who knows?

 

[timschochet]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

I am.

That's what I thought....TGunz struggling with reading comprehension again.

Hes laughing at those who think I'm a progressive.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree with Commish. I can't remember a more fluid electorate on both sides as this year. Hillary SHOULD win Iowa, she has a commanding lead, but- who knows?

How has it been fluid amongst the Democrats? Hillary had a Yuge lead, it dissipated, a lot, but despite Hillary hitting her record lows for favorability there has been no establishment, credible opponent to compete for the same voters that Hillary has instead had all to herself. Except for a short charge which really required Joe jumping in to finish it's been a potemkin campaign.

 

[The Commish]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

I am.

That's what I thought....TGunz struggling with reading comprehension again.

Hes laughing at those who think I'm a progressive.

I know....what he continues to ignore is most of our positions aren't black and white....the generalization falls completely on it's face. ETA: Now if his assertion is that Hillary isn't progressive thus backing her isn't progressive then I'm on board, but given the history and argument from him and others that she was "progressive" I just assumed that wasn't the case.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with Commish. I can't remember a more fluid electorate on both sides as this year. Hillary SHOULD win Iowa, she has a commanding lead, but- who knows?

How has it been fluid amongst the Democrats? Hillary had a Yuge lead, it dissipated, a lot, but despite Hillary hitting her record lows for favorability there has been no establishment, credible opponent to compete for the same voters that Hillary has instead had all to herself. Except for a short charge which really required Joe jumping in to finish it's been a potemkin campaign.

Well I hope you're right obviously. But Bernie and his enthusiastic followers still make me nervous.

 

[The Commish]

I agree with Commish. I can't remember a more fluid electorate on both sides as this year. Hillary SHOULD win Iowa, she has a commanding lead, but- who knows?

How has it been fluid amongst the Democrats? Hillary had a Yuge lead, it dissipated, a lot, but despite Hillary hitting her record lows for favorability there has been no establishment, credible opponent to compete for the same voters that Hillary has instead had all to herself. Except for a short charge which really required Joe jumping in to finish it's been a potemkin campaign.

This boils down to the electorate. They are at a different point on the path than the GOP. They're fine with the establishment because they are being told they are "winning". That's a huge mountain to overcome and I don't expect Bernie to overcome it all by himself, but perhaps people hearing him will get them thinking for future elections. It's probably wishful thinking on my part Or simply put "politics as usual" is just fine with them and there isn't anyone who does "politics" better than Hillary.

 

[Rove!]

Iowa Caucus (PPP)

Clinton 57

Sanders 25

O'Malley 7

The 7% for O'Malley is the first time he's got any number at all- probably a combination of the debate and Biden declaring no interest.

This ballgame is over I think. Sanders hasn't explained to people why Hillary shouldn't be president, and there's no Biden to take the top off her numbers and run on behalf of the administration.

Sanders threw himself on his sword when he said he was tired of hearing about her damn emails., he's done.

 

[Sand]

Just for you Saints:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/5-hillary-scandals-the-media-is-missing/

5 more scandals about Hillary that the media is ignoring.

I don't think the press has missed these. They have been reported by NYT, WaPo and other major journals. You probably are unaware of them because you don't read them.

I don't think there would be much to grab onto for 3, 4, and 5. So it's a scandal that the Clintons don't like their son-in-law? Welcome to the club. Just a bit of a stretch on that one. The others have too many intermediaries to get close to the Clintons - shouldn't have even mentioned them.

1 and 2, though, are huge. The Russian uranium deal has always stunk and those kinds of sums flying around is a big red flag. 1 is why Hillary deleted her "personal" emails. They wanted all the interconnections between her official position and the CF to be buried. I, for one, would love to see those personal emails. Ignoring the 15k yoga emails the other 15k CF emails would be incredibly interesting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just for you Saints:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/5-hillary-scandals-the-media-is-missing/

5 more scandals about Hillary that the media is ignoring.

I don't think the press has missed these. They have been reported by NYT, WaPo and other major journals. You probably are unaware of them because you don't read them.

I don't think there would be much to grab onto for 3, 4, and 5. So it's a scandal that the Clintons don't like their son-in-law? Welcome to the club. Just a bit of a stretch on that one. The others have too many intermediaries to get close to the Clintons - shouldn't have even mentioned them.

1 and 2, though, are huge. The Russian uranium deal has always stunk and those kinds of sums flying around is a big red flag. 1 is why Hillary deleted her "personal" emails. They wanted all the interconnections between her official position and the CF to be buried. I, for one, would love to see those personal emails. Ignoring the 15k yoga emails the other 15k CF emails would be incredibly interesting.

Tim's point here is teeing up the NYPost which puts all these in "scandal" land, however all these are issues which have been reported in serious journalism. The son in law issue is about his ties to Goldman Sachs. I do think voters should at least be aware of it, but most are not.

Stories 1, 2 and 3 are all tied into the Foundation. Hillary said during her congressional testimony that she destroyed documentation concerning anything like the Foundation which she didn't consider work related. So Blumenthal emails re: Benghazi and Libya, not work related, and emails with Teneo and the Foundation re: conflicts of interest that Mills and her were flagging within State, which was supposed to ensure there was no conflict of interest, not work related. Of course they very much were.

Story 5 seems like the meh to me. I do think all candidates should put their medical history in some sort of report on the table. I also think they should put their academic history, military records, and any criminal history (for example as we saw with Bush) out there too.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Complexity is Corruptions's best friend.

Of course. You want a society with no corruption? Stalinist Russia comes to mind.

No corruption?

 

[squistion]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-benghazi-poll-20151102-story.html

Hillary Clinton's standing with public rises after Benghazi testimony, poll finds

The 11 hours Hillary Rodham Clinton spent at the House Benghazi committee last month appears to have been time well spent: The former secretary of State has significantly improved her standing among key groups of voters, a new poll indicates.

Among Democratic primary voters, 72% said they were now satisfied with Clinton's responses to questions about how she handled the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. That's up from 58% before her testimony.

Clinton's lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont among primary voters also grew slightly, the poll found. It now stands at 62% to 31%.

Clinton made progress as well among swing voters, the survey found. Before her testimony, 84% of swing voters had said they were not satisfied with her responses to questions about Benghazi. In the latest survey, only 40% said so.

That does not mean Clinton has completely persuaded swing voters -- only about 1 in 4 said they were satisfied with her answers. But it does suggest that the testimony has gone a long way toward neutralizing the issue among voters who have not already made up their minds to oppose her.

Clinton also convinced a significant number of voters that her use of a private email server while heading the State Department is not a huge issue.

In mid-October, 47% of voters said the email issue would be an important factor in their decision on whether to vote for Clinton and 44% said it would not be important. Now, the figures have reversed, 48% say the issue will not be important to their vote, and 42% say it will be important to their decision.

 

[timschochet]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Haven't you said over and over on these boards you think she is a honest person that doesn't lie and she has good morals?

 

[Dickies]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Pretty sure she was against gay marriage until 4-5 years ago when it became more popular to be for it. Granted, I never believed she was actually against it, but was too afraid it would be political suicide. One of the glaring reasons I don't trust her and cannot see myself voting for her.

 

[jon_mx]

I am not sure why anyone would vote for someone who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. The chances of having someone worth voting for is approaching zero.

 

[Dickies]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Haven't you said over and over on these boards you think she is a honest person that doesn't lie and she has good morals?

I don't really ever recall Tim saying that.

 

[Dickies]

I am not sure why anyone would vote for someone who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. The chances of having someone worth voting for is approaching zero.

Bernie

 

[Ookie Pringle]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Haven't you said over and over on these boards you think she is a honest person that doesn't lie and she has good morals?

I don't really ever recall Tim saying that.

In the past the has defended her a lot when she gets called out for lying.

 

[timschochet]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Haven't you said over and over on these boards you think she is a honest person that doesn't lie and she has good morals?

No. What I wrote is that I don't consider her corrupt. She is, however, a typical politician and will say stuff to get elected.

 

[timschochet]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Haven't you said over and over on these boards you think she is a honest person that doesn't lie and she has good morals?

I don't really ever recall Tim saying that.

In the past the has defended her a lot when she gets called out for lying.

No again. I have defended her against scandals and corruption. I have called her out for lying.

 

[jon_mx]

I am not sure why anyone would vote for someone who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. The chances of having someone worth voting for is approaching zero.

Bernie

At least he is a decent person. We probably will have a choice of one candidate who made their millions by selling their political power or one who made their millions by buying it. Both corrupt to the core.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Gotta run; I'll do the rest of this later. So far, no proven lies.

This is one of the things I remember.

 

[timschochet]

Gotta run; I'll do the rest of this later. So far, no proven lies.

This is one of the things I remember.

I was specifically referring to Benghazi.

 

[matuski]

I am not sure why anyone would vote for someone who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. The chances of having someone worth voting for is approaching zero.

If you have ever voted for a politician.. guilty.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/idme-wordpress-military/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/01154745/hillary-email-1.png

That's 2011.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And Rachel Maddow and many other Democrats who will vote for her don't care that she is lying about this and a range of stuff from immigration to drug sentencing to foreign intervention. It's basically a fig leaf or the equivalent of a guy just telling a girl 'I love you' to get what he wants. Does it really matter that she is a complete empty vase when it comes to principles? The closest thing to a true consistent policy we can say Hillary has held over the years has been on foreign policy, she has been pro intervention and to me in a good way she has defended longstanding American relationships with Europe and allies. I think she gets that and most likely because she was taught in that old school Democratic wing that has become almost nonexistent. She is probably the last sliver of that. In a bad way she has advocated and defended intervention and bombings in Iraq, Serbia, Libya, and maybe even Syria, sometimes without Congressional or UN approval. But even that Democrats will forget and forgive. Just get elected and fill the Supreme Court vacancies as instructed.

 

[squistion]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

I vaguely remember there was some talk on the right at that time about a Constitutional amendment if DOMA didn't pass, but I don't recall how seriously it was taken. However a Daily Kos diary seems to think that there is some validity to Hillary's statement:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/27/1440473/-Sorry-Bernie-DOMA-Really-Was-a-Defensive-Action-Against-a-Possible-Constitutional-Amendment

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

[...]

Anyway, could it really be that Hillary Clinton is suddenly rewriting the history of DOMA to make herself and her husband look better for this campaign?

The answer is no...and there's proof.

Bill Clinton agonized about his decision for years, and in a March 2013 Washington Post op-ed entitled "It's Time to Overturn DOMA" he wrote:

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage "would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more." It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

Sure enough, there is indeed 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:

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 states 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 marriagean 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.

The way I see it, there are only a couple of possibilities here.
Either the Clintons were able to convince a bipartisan group of former U.S. Senators to lie to the Supreme Court in early 2013 so Hillary could have a better answer two-and-a-half years later about why her husband signed DOMA nearly twenty years earlier...


...or maybe, just maybe...Hillary is telling the truth.

 

[jon_mx]

Well if someone at the Daily Kos believes Hillary.....: rolleyes:

 

[squistion]

Well if someone at the Daily Kos believes Hillary.....: rolleyes:

Ok, so then you must believe that "The Clintons were able to convince a bipartisan group of former U.S. Senators to lie to the Supreme Court in early 2013 so Hillary could have a better answer two-and-a-half years later about why her husband signed DOMA nearly twenty years earlier..."

 

[Sinn Fein]

Well if someone at the Daily Kos believes Hillary.....: rolleyes:

Ok, so then you must believe that "The Clintons were able to convince a bipartisan group of former U.S. Senators to lie to the Supreme Court in early 2013 so Hillary could have a better answer two-and-a-half years later about why her husband signed DOMA nearly twenty years earlier..."

"Eliminating the possibility" is a far cry from a real threat to an actual constitutional Amendment

There was no actual threat of an Amendment that would be passed/adopted in 75% of the states.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Clinton on NPR on her views:

GROSS: So you mentioned that you believe in state-by-state for gay marriage, but it's the Supreme Court, too. The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That part is now struck down. And DOMA was actually signed by your husband when he was president. In spite of the fact that he signed it, were you glad at this point that the Supreme Court struck some of it down?

CLINTON: Of course. And, you know, again, let's - we are living at a time when this extraordinary change is occurring and I'm proud of our country. I'm proud of the people who had been on the frontlines of advocacy, but in 1993, that was not the case and there was a very concerted effort in the Congress to, you know, make it even more difficult and greater discrimination. And what DOMA did is at least allow the states to act. It wasn't going yet to be recognized by the federal government, but at the state level there was the opportunity. And my husband, you know, was the first to say that, you know, the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated by the passage of DOMA thankfully were no longer so preeminent and we could keep moving forward, and that's what we're doing.

GROSS: So just to clarify - just one more question on this - would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view?

CLINTON: I think I'm an American. (Laughing) And I think we have all evolved and it's been one of the fastest most sweeping transformations.

GROSS: No, I understand, but a lot of people already believed in it back the '90s. A lot of people already supported gay marriage.

CLINTON: But not - to be fair, Terry, not that many. Yes, were there activists who were ahead of their time? Well, that was true in every human rights and civil rights movement, but the vast majority of Americans were just waking up to this issue and beginning to, you know, think about it and grasp it for the first time. And, you know, think about their neighbor down the street who deserved to have the same rights as they did or their son or their daughter. It has been an extraordinarily fast - by historic terms - social, political and legal transformation. And we ought to celebrate that instead of plowing old ground, where in fact a lot of people, the vast majority of people, have been moving forward - maybe slowly, maybe tentatively, maybe not as quickly and extensively as many would have hoped, but nevertheless we are at a point now where equality, including marriage equality, in our country, is solidly established. Although there will be places.

GROSS: I - I...

CLINTON: Texas, just to name one, where that is still going to be an ongoing struggle.

GROSS: I'm pretty sure you didn't answer my question about whether you evolved or it was the American public that changed (Laughing).

CLINTON: I said I'm an American, so of we all evolved. And I think that that's a fair, you know, that's a fair conclusion.

GROSS: So you're saying your opinion on gay marriage changed as opposed to you - you just felt it was comfortable...

CLINTON: You know, somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody's always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn't mean that those who joined later in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across our country if nobody changed their mind. And thank goodness so many of us have.

GROSS: So that's one for you changed your mind? (Laughing).

CLINTON: You know, I really - I have to say, I think you are very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.

GROSS: I am just trying to clarify so I can understand.

CLINTON: No, I don't think you are trying to clarify. I think you're trying to say that, you know, I used to be opposed and now I'm in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that's just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress we're making.

GROSS: You know, I'm just saying - I'm sorry - I just want to clarify what I was saying - no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but - you know, believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn't ready yet and you couldn't say it. That's what I was thinking.

CLINTON: No. No, that is not true.

GROSS: OK.

CLINTON: I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage and I don't think you probably did either. This was an incredibly new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay rights movement began to talk about and slowly but surely convinced others of the rightness of that position. And when I was ready to say what I said, I said it.

She did not support Gay marriage in the 1990s. She did not support DOMA as a way to further gay rights, or to fend off a constitutional amendment.

I am willing to accept that she has "evolved" on the issue, as she has on many issues - and not necessarily for political gain. I think it has to do with the notion that it is more politically acceptable - not that she is pandering for votes. But, she should stop pretending that she and her husband were supporting gay rights by supporting DOMA.

The thing with Clinton is that she is never on the leading edge of any issue - she never fights for a cause, she simply comes out in support when the dust clears. That is not leadership. That is not presidential.