The Advocate asks Hillary 'Are you a lesbian?'

I've heard....

she does have an eye for the women, it's all under the wraps...

---

by: RogernDC @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:50:32 PM CDT

The answers I'd like to hear...

"There's nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian. I don't happen to be a lesbian, though."

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:54:38 PM CDT

I want Romney asked

about the lesbian rumors swirling around him!  You know what they say - the ones with the most children feel they have the most to prove!  Queenie loves his own good looks.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:57:34 PM CDT

They did?

In fairness, they didn't exactly ask her "Are you a lesbian?"  They introduced the fact that people often call her a lesbian and then asked her how she responds to that.  That's a little different and a much more appropriate question for an LGBT magazine to ask a candidate.

---

by: sanfranguns @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 15:02:32 PM CDT

Well this will shut up the right wing pundnets ....

not.

There is nothing wrong with being gay.  It is why so many have made the choice.  (ok bad joke)  But it does seem like an enlightened view and well the Republicans aren't playing to the enlightened audience.  They play to the self centered and gullible.  The self centered vote with their pocketbooks.  The gullible vote with their ignorance.

Rich gay and black people are self-explanatory.

Stupid/gullible/ignorant is an open class and filled with many self-loathing people voting at cross purposes. 

One of the funniest things about the Larry/bathroom thing was his denial. "I am not now nor have I ever been gay.  I love my wife." It looked like he was thinking ,"What else would a spright man say?"  This is so sad to me.

In playing to the fundamentalist Christian crowd, who have been lead away from Christ, they have bred intolerance among the easily convinced.

Although I too claim I am a Christian, I blame Billy Gram.

God is love and God's love is for us all.

God Bless

 

---

by: mike mid city @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 15:14:34 PM CDT

What difference should it make if she was a lesbian or not?

Does that have any bearing on how good/bad a President she'd be?  While I appreciate that GBLTQAetc. issues are factors in this election, I think there are greater issues that they need to concentrate on.

Incidentally, I wonder what would happen if they had a multi-racial lesbian with kids as a candidate?

---

by: gayjaybird @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 15:16:03 PM CDT

The article is online at advocate.com

...It strikes me as a bit lacking in tone and analysis.  It's basicially 'Hillary has let us down in the past, but we love her anyways.  I think she's dreamy.'  There's also an interesting explaination of her superb record on LGBT issues, along with the assertion that she's actually better than her public statements might lead one to believe.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 17:16:36 PM CDT

Lets hope not...

  The Advocate’s analysis Hillary Clinton is the Disneyland version of political reality.          If Hillary Clinton gets in we’ll see a curdled rerun of Bill Clinton sans the sax and sex. Get set for a long war; she supports Bush’s plans to nuke Iran, voted for and votes to sustain the unlawful genocidal invasion of Iraq and insists that the ‘surge’ is working. The opposite is true; it’s led to more GI’s getting mauled and more Iraqis getting murdered. She avoids discussing full equality for gays and lesbians because she’s against it. The best you can expect from her is a modest coat of cosmetics to conceal real problems.      She isn’t the most qualified candidate but she’s home schooled by Bill Clinton, who thinks same sex marriage is ‘the kiss of death’ for Democrats. (It will be, just not the way he thinks.) Hillary blames Gore, not the Bill and Monica Show for their heartbreak in 2000. She blames everybody BUT Bill Clinton and his DOMA for their fiasco in 2004. His signature on DOMA and his ringing endorsement of bigot (read traditional) values manna from heaven for the Republicans who used it to scapegoat us and get reelected in 2004. The other reason Democrats  lost is because they could scarcely make an issue of the war; it’s their war as much as Bushes, and that’s never been truer than now.       Now here’s a puzzle. How did Bill Clinton, a simple backwoods Arkansas lawyer get to be a gazillionaire. Was it a freak bank error or did he sell his soul to big business and the obscenely and push us under the bus. He and the Democrats helped ram DOMA and DADT into law. When he did stand tall it was on the backs of working people. He fought hard for NAFTA, an agreement calculated to erode the standard of living of union and non-union workers in Canada, Mexico and the US. He pardoned rich criminals like fugitive financier Marc Rich, while abandoning political prisoners to their fate.     Hillary Clinton’s one big chance to show off her political cleverness, aside from being the midwife of DOMA, was her botched health care bill. It was crafted by the very insurance companies that would have profited from it. But, as luck would have it, it was so byzantine and tortuous that no one with an average Congressional IQ could get make heads or tails of it. It died of mortification.      For the last year or so she’s crossed the country, Bible pressed to bosom, ‘dialoging’ with christian bigots, misogynists and anti abortion fanatics. It’s paid off. Robert Murdoch, the obscenely rich owner of Faux News and several right wing rags that would make the editors of Der Angriff blush with envy graciously hosted a private tête-à-tête for her at the Fox News building in 2006 where she no doubt made her deal(s) with the Devil. Unlike some poor deluded suckers, the obscene rich don’t give a rat’s ass who’s in power. They’re serenely confident that if they find a democrat or Republican in the Oval Office they’re for sale. They haven’t been disappointed since U.S. Grant took office in 1868.       Hillary Clinton is so caught up in the Washington culture of graft and corruption that she has no problem defending her ties with lobbyists (the ones delivering briefcases full of big bucks to grease the wheels of government for the obscenely rich). She’s particularity fond, as she says, of lobbyists who “represent corporations that employ a lot of people." She, like Bill Clinton, is a consummate opportunist and a gifted liar.  She changes her position as often as most people change their clothes. And nobody in the Democratic and Republican bats an eye.

     Her administration would be a sour rehash of Bush2 and Clinton1. Who needs eight more years of that shit?  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 19:26:57 PM CDT

The Question of Mrs. Clinton

has always intrigued me.  Not the lady herself, who I find very Bright if not terribly articulate and I understand works very hard.  No what interests me is the visceral reaction people have to her.  Because it's nearly always that, visceral, emotive, subjective.  In some fora, including this one, she is taken to task on the issues (though I thought the Advocate headline posted above somewhat disingenuous), but  the general reaction to her seems always to be from the gut.  Redact her name from donal's piece above and you could substitute almost any other candidate's name and it would be true.  Why should Clinton be any different? 

Politicians run to get elected, it's what they do, and this requires vast sums.  They say, do, promise, what they can to procure those sums.  They then have a short window in the ludicrously short and ineffective legislative cycle to pay back that money to ensure more for the next round.  Their priorities are to get in office and stay in office.  Some may then hope to do some reasonable service to their country, but they don't have a lot of time to do it, and much of that is spent scraping what they can from the pork barrel to ensure the re-election.  Thus does the cycle feed itself.  Clinton is a master of the game, but she is not alone.  Yet we heap scorn on her for doing what all the rest of them do.  Did we expect anything different because she's a woman?  It will be interesting to see what happens next time a woman throws her coiffe into the ring. 

In any case, I don't think she or Obama will win next year, though that's a joint ticket I'd like to see, in the same way I'd like to see a black lesbian jew get elected Pope.  It would signal that America has grown up enough about sex, race and politics to deserve a competent woman or a black man at the helm.  It's a bit pathetic that the leading nation of the democratic world isn't ready for it when more conservative places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Phillipines, Iceland, Nicaragua, Ireland, India, Chile and Sri Lanka have all been there, done that. 

 

---

by: Brian @ Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 03:30:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton answers the question perfectly

I don't necessarily think that the question posed by the Advocate is a bad one. Let's face it - Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States and she will be dealing with rumors and innuendo far more devastating than whether she is or is not a lesbian.

Clinton's response was telling. Unlike many straight men who respond defensively to  any questions about their same-sex attractions, Senator Clinton simply answered the question as honestly as she could and then moved on. She didn't plead "out-of-bounds" and felt no need to highlight her heterosexuality as a response to the rumors. Yet another example of how Hillary Clinton has the integrity, intelligence, emotional maturity and self-awareness to be a truly remarkable world leader. She has my vote.

---

by: Clark414 @ Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 16:51:44 PM CDT