President Clinton Responds To A “Heckler”
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on August 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM in Bill Clinton, Campaign promises, Civil Rights, Current Affairs, Democrats, Dept. of Justice (Obama), Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Rights, Obama's Broken Promises, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
At the Netroot Nations ‘09 meeting recently, there was an interaction between President Bill Clinton and a member of the audience. During Clinton’s speech, this man stood up to ask him some questions. I mean in the middle of Clinton’s speech. Major H/T to my NQ fellow writer, pm317 for the following video. Check out the man’s questions, and Clinton’s responses (as pm317 noted, President Clinton responded without aid of even ONE teleprompter):
Wow, right?
And the following article is by the guy who interrupted President Clinton, Lane Hudson:
Why I Interrupted Bill Clinton’s Speech at Netroots NationI love Bill Clinton, but we all make mistakes. Sometimes we even are forced to do things we don’t want to. That’s why I was prepared to ask Bill Clinton a tough question last night as he delivered the opening keynote address at Netroots Nation 2009.
But it became clear there would be no questions. As I sat in the audience thinking about how Netroots Nation is about celebrating the most open forum of discussion ever to exist, it occurred to me that we were nothing more than a captive audience being talked to. One way communication was NOT what we were there to celebrate and advance.
As I considered this, I turned to my friend who had helped to formulate the question I wanted to ask and said, “I might just yell something out.” I couldn’t believe I said it. I mean, blogging and speaking my mind is one thing, but to yell it out in a large public forum to a former President of the United States is quite another.
He talked about a new progressive era and how America has changed. Yet, there was no reflection on how that change could undo some big mistakes from his Presidency. So, at the point that he said, “We need an honest, principled debate”, I knew I had to try to stimulate the discussion. So, I stood and said, “Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Right now?”
That was some move on his part, though I kinda wonder about his characterization of President Clinton’s speech, and if it was listed as a speech, or as a Q&A. I’m just saying. But still, this is rather surprising:
The immediate response shocked me at the time and still does. Those surrounding me yelled at me, booed, and told me to sit down. One elderly lady even told me to leave. While I was among the supposed most progressive audience in the country, they sought to silence someone asking a former President to speak out on behalf of repealing two laws that TOOK AWAY RIGHTS OF A MINORITY. I was shocked.The immediate Twitter stream with the hashtag #NN09 was not much different. I sent out a few tweets and once people who knew me saw it was me and that I was asking Clinton to call for repeal of those two discriminatory laws, there was plenty of support. Thanks y’all! Here is a link to the video. I’ll let you judge for yourselves the reaction of the audience (I especially LOVE the “I love you Bill!!!” while he was justifying DADT.)
What happened that was really important, however, is that President Clinton did address the issues that I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have without my forcing the conversation. Of course, he started with a strident defense of how DOMA and DADT went down on his watch. But, I already knew that story. It was the present that I cared about, not the past.
Thankfully, he got around to the present. He made the strongest objection to DADT he has ever made to the best of my knowledge. He clearly called for the policy being changed. On DOMA, he spent much less time, but lamented its passage and doing a half-hearted kind of call for repeal, “I don’t like the DOMA”.
It’s not spectacular, but it’s progress.
Well, Clinton’s “half-hearted kind of call for repeal” is a HELLUVA lot more than Mr. Hudson will get from President Obama. But hey, why quibble, right? Ahem. Mr. Hudson continues:
Too often, we don’t challenge people to admit mistakes. Too often we hold idols up to a place they don’t deserve. Like I said, I love Bill Clinton, but we all make mistakes and live in a less than perfect world. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for the perfect.He mentioned in his speech that he admired that we bloggers could speak our mind. That’s what I did. In today’s world, a former President that has now said he supports marriage equality should find it easy to say without equivocation that he supports repealing two discriminatory laws that he felt he had no choice but to sign into law. He didn’t do that, but he needs to.
So, to the folks in the audience at #NN09, I just wanted to make sure he talked about two issues that mean a great deal to me and many others. (I didn’t know it at the time, but Lt. Dan Choi was in the audience.) I wouldn’t have yelled from the audience and interrupted if we weren’t being held as a captive audience.
But at the end of the day, I’ll take the heckler title if you all want to give it to me. The yelling at me is okay, too. Heck, I’ll even take the initial comment from the President that likened me to a health care town hall protester. None of it matters because a little bit of progress was made. President Clinton even came around later in his speech saying he was glad “that young man challenged me tonight”.
There is hope for our heralded former President to make those unequivocal statements that I was hoping for. Even more importantly, I hope that my fellow progressive movement activists will never sit in a captive audience and talk down to others who are working hard to advance progressive issues.
Oh, okay. Whatever. Yes, it is good that President Clinton made it very clear that it was those the people elected who are responsible for DOMA and DADT. He has a point, does he not? At some point, fingers should be pointed back at the ones pointing for electing those people in the first place. But as President Clinton also said, we are in a different time and place now, and hopefully that will help us move forward, whether our current president wants us to or not (”actions speak louder than words,” you know).
Yes, actions speak louder than words. This this was what Hillary Clinton said about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the campaign. She HAS demonstrated with her actions that she stands with the GLBT community long before her campaign, and has made great strides already at the State Department, as President Clinton highlighted.
And Obama? Not so much. As of this writing, 352 service members have been discharged under Obama’s watch. And I think we all remember what Obama’s Justice Department thinks of same-sex marriage (think incest and pedophilia), and the “benefits” he gave to Federal employees? Little more than MOVING expenses. That’s about it.
So my suggestion for Mr. Hudson is, perhaps instead of targeting President Clinton on these issues, you could spend your time targeting President Obama. After all, Obama campaigned on ending both, and he has done worse than nothing - he has evaded on DADT, and insulted beyond belief on DOMA. Obama has a “Super Majority;” Clinton not so much. Alot has changed in the past 16 years - as Clinton noted, one of the main generals opposed to DADT then is for it now. So,why don’t you go interrupt one of Obama’s speeches, why don’t ya?
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Look, I respect President Clinton and he has a way of diffusing tough situations and at least confronts him. But, I disagree with his assessment that we need universal healthcare.
US is spending too much and going to displace more people from work if they pass HR 320 which is nothing more than a government sanction to control the lives of Americans in direct attack of what the Declaration of Independence declared americans have “inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
The whole healthcare bill needs to be defeated. Americans keep up the protest.
Amen on that one.
It’s time for a do-over.
Americans, who live in one of the largest countries in the world, seem to live in very small mental spaces, listening only to the 10 second sound bites emanating from their media of choice. So many Americans have convinced themselves that universal health care is a bad thing, and that single payer health care is evil incarnate.
It’s astounding! The world looks on the American system of healthcare in amazement that any Western democracy could harbour such a corrupt, inefficient and wasteful system, paying twice as much as their fellow democracies for a much inferior product.
Yes, fabulous healthcare is available with no waiting and no restrictions to the one half of one percent of the wealthiest Americans, while twenty percent have no coverage, and another thirty percent are woefully underinsured. This means that fully half of Americans do not have comprehensive primary health insurance. Even the fifty percent of Americans who do have adequate coverage still face having to get pre-approvals and make substantial co-payments, and face losing their insurance if they lose their jobs, all the while paying the highest premiums in the Western world.
America is fast becoming very uncompetitive because employers have to add the ridiculous costs of health benefits to the cost of manufacturing and services. A mid-sized business with a 2 million dollar payroll in the province of Quebec, Canada, for example, would pay a payroll tax of 2.9% to the healthcare fund, and that would be their entire obligation. Employees would pay an additional amount per adult family member for government drug insurance, up to a maximum of $575 per year. Companies can add private insurance that gives extra coverage (and includes drugs thereby exempting the employee from the government drug plan), and a very nice policy can be had for under $4,000 per middle-aged employee.
With single payer insurance, American would not have to pay more than they already pay. They could even end up paying much less, especially since they would not face crippling co-payments and lifetime caps. The difference? The money would actually go to healthcare, and not to the Cayman Island bank accounts of the top insurance executives, nor to their villas in Italy.
Wake up Americans! Some of your most essential services are already socialized, like firefighting, police and education. Or perhaps you want a system where the first thing you’d hear when you dialled 911 because your house was on fire was ‘do you have firefighting insurance?’
America is less competitive because of the children that have been raised to think that they are to be given a job making 100,000 dollars a year right out of college.
I know this for a fact. I see young kids come into work and quit within a year because they only get a standard pay raise. During that year they don’t do anything other than what their job title says, and even then, they do it just so so. They call out all the time. The majority of them are fired. Some don’t even show up for work and try to make excuses as to why they didn’t call. Some will say they called but “got tired of waiting for someone to answer the phone”. They ask off all the time, and want to make their own schedule as it suits them. They demand recognition for the most mundane tasks that are part of their jobs. They don’t strive to go beyond and above. Then when they don’t get a promotion or a substantial raise due to their mundane performance, they become disgruntle and quit.
Americas workforce has become lazy, non productive, and selfish. That’s why America is failing in the business world. The regulation and entitlement benefits through legislation is just an extension of this attitude–wanting to get something someone else has without having to work as hard as they did to prove they deserve.
They are currently giving us managers courses on how to deal with this generation. They have termed them the “millennium” generation. Its insane. Eventually businesses are bound to fail with such employees. Companies are currently trying to figure out how to motivate these lazy irresponsible people to get them to perform their jobs without having 60% turn over rates. I say its hopeless, fire them and let them learn the hard way.
I know someone that has three twenty-something sons. Each works for about four to six months, they save up some bucks, and then they go tour Europe for two months. Then, the boys get angry when all they are offered are entry level jobs once they’re back in the states.
No one seems to be able to convince them that longevity at a job and company is the path to future promotions. No wonder socialism is a attractive to these - dare it be said - obot losers.
Also no one ever looks at why other countries especially Europe can afford healthcare. It’s be WE as Americans footing the bill for Europe and the world for quite sometime. So when you have a rich sugar daddy looking you can afford to do what you choose with the money ou have.
Further more, it’s amazing how many adults because of entitlements believe they dserve things. I have no problem with social programs that pay for CHILDREN the ELDErlY and the DISABLED. But if you think i want to chuck programs that pay for people who actually don’t have alot of say in the conditions they live in just to pay for a bunch of abled bodied adults to recieve medical care at the expense of one of those groups you have another thing coming. I don’t give a rat ass what other Western Democracies think we should provided for our citizens. Adn the only thing worse than a self rigteous propaganda spouting right wing nut. IS a self righteous propaganda spouting liberal. Also the reason why police and fire departments are socialized is because the constitution says they can be. Both those services protect and defend the tax paying citizen. BUt no where in the consitituion does it say that the government is repsonaible for providing every thing you need from cradle to grave. Grow the hell up! If you choose not to please be reminded of what life was like when you lived with your parents who provided for all your expenseive needs they controlled your life. NOthings free and it’s about time people figure that out! As much as i love my progressive programs fo the needy. I”m sick and tired of being lectured by the greedy. When a child can ask to nurse it’s time to stop breast feeding.
This guy seems not to understand th by interrupting Pres. Clinton’s speech, he brands himself as a lowlife. Naturally people booed him.
President Clinton was probably irritated by the interruption.
However, he did allow the guy to speak and didn’t call for the police or Secret Service to remove him.
Our Senators and Congresspeople should take note.
No kidding. Never mind that Hudson sounded just a tad sanctimonious in his “review” of the incident.
And, never mind that this conference was basically the lefty liberal bloggers (huh - before 5/31/08, that would have been me) patting themselves on the back for getting OBAMA elected, and this guy is interrupting CLINTON?? Seems he’s blaming the wrong guy.
Clinton had an all Republican Congress. Obama has a Super Dem. Majority. Clinton didn’t renege on his promise, he just couldn’t get all that he wanted with that Congress.
Obama, OTOH, most definitely HAS reneged on his promises to the GLBT community. Maybe this guy can stop patting himself on the back for disrupting a speech long enough to re-direct his ire where it belongs: Obama.
IMHO, that is…
Clinton had an all Republican Congress. Obama has a Super Dem. Majority. Clinton didn’t renege on his promise, he just couldn’t get all that he wanted with that Congress.
This is classic Clinton/liberal revisionism. In 1992 when Clinton was elected and took on the question of gays in the military the DEMOCRATS controlled the senate (56/44) and the house (267/167). He was forced into the policy because the AMERICAN PEOPLE opposed gays in the military. Check Clinton’s early poll numbers, they tanked because he tried to appease the far left right out the gate and got slapped by the american people. That plus the government health care branded him a liberal in the American peoples eyes and they responded by bringing in the Republicans in ‘04. America is not liberal. Check all of the votes on gay marriage (including far left California) 60-70% oppose it. It is why the Obama administration is now backing off the health care plan now. America is STILL center right.
You raise a good point abt the Congress. Hmmm. And if I was wrong (and Bill, too) abt who controlled Congress, I apologize for the error.
You have provided an interesting take on this issue - thanks for that.
talk about revisionism, and amnesia… it is not so interesting to note the truth about the Republican attacks that barraged Clinton from day one, and I mean continuous fire on steroids! careful…
what is revisionist or amnesiac about my statements? What is not entirely historically true? So what if the Repubs attacked Clinton (especially in 92-93 the time period we are talking about). The Dems didnt “attack” Reagen or GHW Bush, they didnt attack GW Bush? That’s politics but it only works if you can get the american people to support your positions.
TO THIS DAY I guarantee you the majority of Americans DO NOT support gays serving openly in the military. They are not that liberal, then or now.
I served in the 70s and there were gays in my unit. No one thought anything of it. It simply was. We had more important things to worry about, since the heavily manned and armed East German border was 5 kilometers to the east of our tactical site.
Bullshit. It was the neoconbots and their radical right-wingnut Xtians who didn’t want gays in the military and harped on it to the exclusion of all else. Today’s obamabots learned all their tricks from them. So when you criticize the Obumblebots, remember that they learned their tactics at your feet.
Fred,
The facts just plain disagree with you. ABC/WP poll in 1993 showed 55% of americans opposed gays serving openly in the military and the number was closer to 75% when the question was put to members of the military. Your personal experience is interesting just not very informative.
from Wikipedia DADT article
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html from a year ago, more statistics for support of GLB in military
careful about convenient misinformation of the homophobic variety…
from Wikipedia DOMA article
all irrelevant. doesnt disprove a thing I said.
If there is more support for gays in the military now it will happen. We were talking about in ‘93. kinda important detail.
as far as the DOMA comments it supports what I have been saying, it passed and was signed by CLINTON because it is what the americans wanted (and still want).
As far as pointing out the Republican controlled congress it mostly proves you have reading comprehension issues. The discussion was about Dont ask dont tell in ‘93 when the Dems controlled congress.
By the way dont label me homophobic. You dont know me and I am have no fear of homosexuals. I have been giving facts, if you dont like them I dont care. Near I can tell you dont have the intellectual capacity to even understand the discussion.
Here’s the facts as I have been laying it out maybe you will understand from this article excerpt.
Bill Clinton also took a similar tumble: he began his presidency with 58% support, according to Gallup, but by 1994 his approval rating fell to 41%. Clinton’s big government health care plan, and his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allowing gays to serve in the military gave voters reason to think that instead of electing a New Democrat, they might just have chosen George McGovern instead.
Perhaps no president knew how to change the subject better than Bill Clinton. After the drubbing he took in the 1994 midterm elections, Clinton ditched Hillary’s health care proposals and opted to enact bite-sized portions — e.g., insuring the children of the unemployed. Gays in the military were also forgotten, as Clinton turned his laser-like attention to family and values issues, including the desirability of having children wear school uniforms. In 1996, Clinton famously noted that “the era of big government is over,” and he signed a welfare reform bill over the objections of many Democrats. By echoing Reagan’s themes and keeping his focus on the middle class, Clinton won an easy victory over Bob Dole.
time for reflection…
I didnt quote any polls I was making an assumption so based on the polls you quote my assumption was wrong but that was not my point.
If the polls you state are accurate the climate is such that it can change. I still doubt that is how it will play out because answering in a innocuous poll is different then real life policy but maybe. Plus I found 2 polls that make the divide closer to 50/50.
The conversation was about ‘93 something you still dont seem to get that.
talk about revisionism, and amnesia…
Again: what is revisionist or amnesiac about my statements? What is not entirely historically true? So what if the Repubs attacked Clinton (especially in 92-93 the time period we are talking about). The Dems didnt “attack” Reagen or GHW Bush, they didnt attack GW Bush? That’s politics but it only works if you can get the american people to support your positions.
You still haven’t answered.
from RRRAmy’s post
from RRRAmy’s comment in response to candymarl
Neither of RRRAmy’s statements mentions 1992, that is a date ‘to77′ injected afterwards. RRRAmy refers to the entire presidency of Bill Clinton, as does Bill Clinton in the video posted above. RRRAmy refers to both DOMA and DADT, not strictly DADT in 1992. RRRAmy is correct, Bill Clinton did not have the Democratic super majority that Obama enjoys. Most of Bill Clinton’s presidency was under a Republican Congressional majority. Republican attacks barraged Clinton from day one, and I mean continuous fire on steroids; no other president was ever subjected to that level of abuse.
To be absolutely precise, the conversation initiated by RRRAmy was about Bill Clinton’s entire presidency, when he signed into law both DADT and DOMA, which was referenced by Bill Clinton in response to Lane Hudson in the video. Bill Clinton spoke to the circumstances of his entire presidency in relation to both DADT and DOMA.
Reference to prove that a majority of Americans have changed their minds on gays in the military since Bill Clinton’s presidency was provided to counter the notion of the guarantee that the majority of Americans DO NOT support gays serving openly in the military.
careful about convenient misinformation of the homophobic variety… refers to a type of misinformation on the current American support for DADT and was not attributed to a person known or unknown.
As goes Iowa and other states, perhaps Americans and the courts, are considering fairness and the law, as conservative Theodore Olson notes, so I believe we are in a different time and place as suggested by Bill Clinton and RRRAmy, and hopefully we can move forward.
CG, thank you for the eloquent synopsis of the post - impressive, to say the least.
One of the big issues Hillary Clinton raised in her responses in both the debates and at Logo was that the situation for gays in the military was BAD. People were threatened with court martial, dishonorable discharges, and forced to identify other gay service members. So what Clinton DID accomplish was pretty remarkable given what was going on at the time. It was far more protective of GLB service people than many now realize.
Does it need to be deep sixed? Absolutely. I simply cannot accept that a number of other countries like the UK, Israel, and others, are so much more advanced than we are. I have to HOPE that we are more tolerant, more accepting than that…Naive, perhaps, but there you have it.
Thank you, CG, for the spirited discussion. I have very much enjoyed your comments.
by the way, RRRA, thanks for congenial response. I dont always agree with your positions politically but I always appreciate your dialogue. Again Thanks!
Certainly, to77. I appreciate your comments and lively discussion as well. And, I thank you for your participation in general.
We don’t all have to agree, thank heavens. As long as we can have respectful dialogue, and be open to each other’s perspectives, we can disagree until the cows come home.
And, along the way, we each might learn some things. That’s pretty cool, isn’t it?
Thanks, EVERYONE, for the great comments. Especially those who have such good memories as to the sentiments at the time, the machinations of those in Congress, the lack of a veto-proof Congress (like Obama has now), etc. Great conversation!
Well you are also leaving out that the media would hype that most of military was against it.
And the fact that Clinton didn’t serve in the military yet trying to dictate a ’social experiment’ on them was a theme exploited by the right wing to people on both sides of the fence. Reps aren’t the only ones who have served in the military you know. And civilians who opposed it deferred to their knowledge of the service to those who did.
Since he was keeping his word about a campaign promise, gays in the military and the draft dodger was still firmly entrenched in people’s minds. This was a front that the right wing knew they would be continuing the battle on if Clinton won the election.
It was expected and exploited.
I still think you miss the point. The Republicans were speaking for the American people. The American people opposed it, those serving in the military opposed it. It is not exploiting a position when it is the position you hold and the people you represent hold.
This is a democracy and trying to “jam” your liberal position down people’s throats is political exploitation. It is not exploitation to represent the voice of the people.
well, to77, some people think that fundamental human rights and dignity should not be put up for a vote. but i guess that’s just the liberal in me talking.
And some people think that if the Constitution does not impart specific rights then it is left to the American people to determine what are “fundamental human rights”. Since the constitution doesnt say anything about who has the “right” to serve in the military some people think it is left up to the American people to determine. And if they think it should be a “right” then we have what are called “constitutional amendments” that impart constitutional rights, but I guess that’s just the conservative constitutionalist in me speaking
‘All men are created equal’ is from the Declaration of Independence which if never written we would not have a constitution.
No I am not missing the point you are. The same arguments were made about black people serving in the military which were bunk then and proven wrong in battle. Gays have proven their worth also.
The major reason it didn’t get through was the argument about a draft dodger telling the military what to do. So an AA General wrote up a compromise…..Gen Colin Powell.
You are so caught up sitting at the end of someone’s bed as an excuse to disqualify them you can’t see the loss of gay soldiers has lessen the safety of the US.
How many gay translators have been let go when one of major issues was that the chatter tapes pointed to 9/11 going operational were translated a day late?
And the military has nothing to do with representing the voice of the people. The military isn’t a democracy….LOL.
It has to do with the defense of our nation and both gays and AA have proven themselves for decades.
should be…..
chatter tapes ‘pointing’ to.
and
‘have proven themselves for hundreds of years in battle for the US.
That’s what I get posting while doing too many things, forgot I fixed it…lol.
“Pointed” is correct
you are correct that dems had the congress from 92-94 but it was not veto-proof, and bob dole ran one of the most obstructionist senate minorities in history.
bill clinton is also correct in stating that 1993 was a totally different world than it is today; if you were gay and living at that time, you know the magnitude of the change that has occurred in the last 16 years. the reality is that bill clinton put up more of a fight for gay rights 16 YEARS AGO than The Fraud is putting up today. that says it all.
What does veto proof have to do with anything?
They could have passed it easily in the house and then forced a filibuster in the Senate just on Dem votes but they couldn’t get them because THE AMERICAN PEOPLE opposed it. The same way they could jam through “health care reform” now but are surrendering on the issue BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE dont want it.
The fact they compromised to “dont ask dont tell” and even tried to pass government health brought in a conservative Republican majority in the house for the FIRST TIME IN 40 YEARS.
As far as who was more “gay friendly” Clinton or Obama is to me, whatever, I think both would give the gay community whatever they want if they thought they could get away with it when facing the 60% of americans who are not liberal. But they can’t. The most solidly reliable dem voting block, African Americans, are the most anti-gay “rights” of any community in america.
Bill Clinton had the African-American voting block in his pocket and he ALWAYS supported gay rights. He was dealing with an American public that was a lot less liberal 16 years ago AND HE STILL TRIED.
Barack Obama has the African-American voting block in his pocket and he does not support gay rights. He is dealing with an American public that is more open and he doesn’t even try.
The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton has done more to support gay rights than Barack Obama has.
It’s as simple as that.
maybe. again I dont think it matters. They are both going to respond to the political environment. That is why Clinton did not go further then dont ask dont tell, even though based on his own statements he would have wanted to.
I dont think Obie has “anything against” the gay community. I think he doesnt think he can gay marriage as an example past the American voters.
and by the way I know they both had the AA vote. my only point is there is almost no support in the general population for certain “gay rights” initiatives. Even Dem strongholds like AA and Union voters oppose gay marriage in fairly large numbers not to mention independents and conservatives.
Well,
If I were a gay voter, it would matter to me.
I would want a politician that was going to at least TRY to stand up for me no matter what the odds are.
Inter-racial marriage used to be opposed by the majority of American people and look where we are at now.
I get your main point, but my main point is that at least Clinton genuinely tried.
If I were a gay voter, it would matter to me
True, but the other side is if I opposed gays in the military I would want my rep to vote against it which is why the repubs did and the moderate/conservative dems did, more people opposed it then supported it. I just think blaming the Repubs as if they werent reflecting the majority of america is just partisan and not accurate.
but I agree No question he tried.
Thanks for acknowledging that Bill did at least try.
Yeah and he had Colin Powell and his buddies ratting him out at every turn and Ted Kennedy and his buddies doing the Jimmy Carter shuffle on him. Now that’s history.
R3A, on board except for this:
Based on the work I have done throughout this entire election cycle but particularly over these past few days, I absolutely believe Nancy Pelosi signed the DNC’s Certification of Nomination swearing BO was eligible for the office of POTUS and filed this with elections officials in all 50 states so they would print his name on the general election ballot; but she never verified he was Constitutionally qualified for the job. I believe I can prove this. And I cannot imagine that BO’s supporters on the left, including his pledged delegates who voted for him at the Convention; are any less patriotic than the rest of us, and would revel at their part in this election fraud. (In states with laws that require the party nominee to be a NBC to get on the ballot, swearing he is a NBC without first obtaining evidence of this fact, is election fraud.) http://jbjd.wordpress.com
Oh, I agree with you, jbjd.
I simply meant that I was a far left liberal person before all of the rampant fraud, manipulations, and incredibly undemocratic actions of the Democratic Party, to which I had belonged my entire life.
Oh, gosh - I would so love for you to prove this, jbjd.
This netroots guy doesn’t “love Bill Clinton”! Like many on the Left they bash Clintin to pump up their “progressive” credentials. This is part of what he was doing, but I also think that he may have been a plant by the WH to divert attention away from Obama, since it’s always easier to blame Clinton than hold their guy’s feet to the fire — on any issue! Clinton is BO’s decoy.
Gotta love Big Dawg for all his flaws! Was he annoyed? Sure. But he didn’t duck the question and gave a full-throated answer and explanation.
Slight difference from what we’re getting right now. And yes, no teleprompter. So as Clinton suggests that Hudson could join the raucus healthcare protest, the present Administration and reps could take a page from Clinton’s performance: this is what genuine and prepared looks like.
i agree, flaws and all clinton is a master statesmen. One of the reason i’ve always liked him despite his personal issues. Everyone loves Reagan but i htink i will always be a little partial to Bill.
So,why don’t you go interrupt one of Obama’s speeches, why don’t ya?
That has been attempted. Barry Hussien Obama-Soetoro response is? Put you on a watch list and request that if you know of anyone one asking questions that you report them.
googled, “heckler interrupts one of Obama’s speeches” under videos, returns 3 videos. None of which show Obama, but they do show Palin and McCain.
googled “Obama’s speeches heckler interrupts” gets 2 more for a total of 5 of BO in Florida ( Results 1 - 5 of about 5 for Obama’s speeches heckler interrupts)
So before one can get to “don’t ask don’t tell” the mere act of inquiring meets a brick wall.
I triple dog dare Lane on this one, that he even tries to go “code pink” on BO. He can’t even get tickets to BO’s events ’cause they are staged to prevent such dissension.
Lane Hudson; put your money where your mouth is. I dare you. I am waiting for you to wear a shirt at a State of the Union address and see what happens.A
I didn’t hear anything “half-hearted” about Clinton’s current sentiments on DOMA and DADT? What’s half-hearted about asking for a policy change and for stating clearly that he thinks same-sex couples should be granted the same rights as married heterosexual couples?
Hey, netroots Punk, why not ask your Guy why with a current super Dem majority He is not repealing DOMA & DADT? Also, ask your Guy why he never objected to his voice being used (in telephone messages) by that Right in their effort to gain votes for the passage of Prop 8?
Moreover, why should it even matter to you what Clinton thinks now, since he isn’t in any position to change these policies?
Still, Clinton was gracious enough to credit the BO administration for the State Dept’s (i.e. Hillary’s) granting of more benefits to same-sex partners. Moreover, Pres Clinton even provided BO a three-point argument to pursue on the question of HC(since thus far all BO has offered is a condescending “trust me” attitude and the bashing of people who are asking hard question about his HC plans).
No kidding, huh, trixta and Teakwoodkite? He’s giving Clinton grief because, well, because he’s CLINTON, and we all know EVERYTHING is Clinton’s fault, except when it’s Bush’s, but it sure as hell is never OBAMA’S…
I, too, loved how Bill got in that HILL got her people federal benefits - full ones, too, not the barest of bare ones that Obama did.
Craig, you are absolutely right - on Lane never even getting that close to Obama, or Obama even being able to respond to a question like that out of the clear blue.
Can you just imagine Obama’s resonse? “Uh, um, uh, well, um, LOOK…” Then 15 minutes of unintelligible meanderings that say nothing…
Absolutely - they can’t, or WON’T, see that The One is nothing more than The Same-o, Same-o…
just wait - obama is letting congress do the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell- as it should be. and it will happen. emmanuel is putting the block on this one right now, insisting the WH wait and let others make the change.
So basically,
Clinton wasn’t given much to work with to advance gay rights with an extremely hostile Republican Congress in the 90’s.
He also had to face a public that wasn’t as open about homesexuality over a decade ago.
I was a teen back then, and I guess I didn’t fully understand that the Republican Congress wanted to actually change the freakin CONSTITUTION to block gay rights.
What Bill Clinton did was admirable, and this just reminds us again that he is one of the best Presidents that we have ever had, and he gets heckled??
Barack Obama says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Why doesn’t he get heckled??
this is ignoring the facts.
Clinton when wrestling with this issue had a Dem Senate and House. He did not go further because the American people would have CRUSHED him. As it was dont ask dont tell hurt him politically. It’s easy to try and blame the Repubs but the Dems shied away because the public was against it. The Repubs were standing up for the majority of the public and the Libs were trying to jam there opinions down the public’s throats. Including the military leadership. Clinton’s own Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff opposed an openly gay military.
My point is that in the face of all the odds, a less open American public, Democrats wary of losing their seats, a hostile Republican party that was against his every move, at least Clinton TRIED.
Obama isn’t doing anything.
This is the key difference.
Lane is, unfortunately, all too typical of his generation in politics: all surface and no substance. He wants to critique Clinton (not in power) for the limp noodle response of Obama (in power) to LGBT rights. WTF? Why isn’t he doing his heckler act at an Obama event? Oh, that’s right - he can’t get in to an Obama event with a dissenting opinion.
Still it was nice to see the Big Dawg very politely smack him upside the head.
We’re at the stage now where the Netroots people are aware that something has gone wrong with the unicorn train and they’re striking out, trying to find out what the problem is for Obama. They have not yet realized that Obama is the problem.
Yes, Obama worshippers love blaming the chorus.
Hey, idiots, its not the chorus. Its the guy *currently* in the big chair. The one with the democrat majority.
the unicorn train. heh heh.
LOL — “unicorn train”!
Just another Obot that can’t remember which side his bread is buttered on…
http://syd4.blogspot.com/2009/08/and-now-for-something-completely.html
Kinda smart ass that fucked up the 2008 election, too.
It’s hard to disagree with your logic there, SYD!
Thanks RRRAmy. Perhaps we should twitter back to Hudson
Personally, I think egotistic Lane only sought deliberate attention and fame for himself, rather than for the cause, unfortunately. I really recent his
I guess the poor dude was forced into the keynote speech by gunpoint, held against his will, forced to listen to a speech he didn’t want to hear. Lane is an attention-seeking dope. Something tells me he will be blackballed from an Obama speech or townhall now, so thanks for not furthering a cause with those that matter, the current President and Congress. And then he has the temerity to invoke Lt. Dan Choi. What an ass of the first degree! My opinion, of course, matters not…
sorry, I really resent his…
Yeah, a keynote speech is not a town hall forum. The netroots Punk is not just being dishonest, but a jerk when he says he was part of a “captive audience.” His justifications for interrupting Pres Clinton are bogus and hypocritical.
It really was bogus.
President Clinton has done more to advance the causes of gay voters, and HE gets heckled?
We have a sitting President that says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and for the most part, he gets a free pass!!!
Some want to attack the man that actually tries to help and lets the slacker off the hook???
It’s insane.
Clinton derangement syndrome rears its ugly head once again.
“So,why don’t you go interrupt one of Obama’s speeches, why don’t ya?”
No kidding!
President Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton has always supported rights for gays. After decades of public service The Clinton’s efforts are well documented. I have paid good hard cash to be ‘held captive’ in an audience by both.
President Clinton out classed the interloper. Giving a simple lesson in decorum and respect in the process.
This issue is better raised with Mr. Obama who has done absolutely nothing to advance gay rights since taking office. He clearly holds the community in high disregard. As of today his administration has announced plans to address the ‘rights’ of illegal’s but the gay community hasn’t quite been able to make the grade.
This administration has tied the gay community to a tree in Minnesota and walked away. Those of you that supported Mr. Obama should take a hard look. Where is your outrage? HRC, GLTF, ACLU, national ‘leaders’, where is YOUR mea culpa?
Actually my question to President Clinton would be “Where the Hell Have You Benn???”"”
Finally we see him for the North Korea thing, and now this.
I am actually glad to see him out, and I notice he is not Lockstep with Obama as much as Hillary…
Time will tell…
There were some things Bill promised to reveal back in November I wonder if he is getting ready to now
If the Big Dawg is talkin’, I’m all ears.
SYD
Yes, I have been patiently waiting for him to do it too, but he has probably had his arm twisted by the Chicago Machine.
I don’t see Bill as being particularly susceptible to arm-twisting. I think he’s just biding his time. Both he and Hillary have always been very patient in their approaches.
I love Big Dog!
Big Dawg all the way.
Listen, I am gay. And we can sit here and debate the issue all we want. But the fact of the matter is that most of America IS homophobic. Look at what happened in california with the election.
None of this will change untill the government starts education programs to over ride the bigotry of their parents.
I don’t want legislation, I want people to RESPECT me for who I am. I don’t want minority rights, but just want the rights of every person, and I want people to WANT to give it to me. You don’t accomplish that by forcing people to conform.
Bill has been “heckled” a lot of over the years. And you know what? I love his responses. He’s not afraid of confrontation. He’s not afraid of of opposite opinions. He’s informed and knowledgeable. And he has conviction.
Obama is not even in the same class as a politician or a human.
totally agree
but when you are knowledgeable and don’t need a teleprompter, that is what you get - common sense
even republicans and democrats respect clinton, they might disagree with his policies, but they respect the fact that during his reign with a republican congress, there was PEACE AND PROSPERITY
the military deaths went up during his time, but people had work, and could get their employer’s to give them healthcare or incentives to buy their own and their were choices available b/c people had money from work to make the decisions
obama and his liberal left wingers like reid and pelosi want to create a communist govt state where vast majority of people are on welfare and dependent on the federal govt
won’t work, look at carter, never has and never will
when companies are brought in to places with low taxes, they pay taxes and the people who have employment can pay taxes
with obama, the federal govt is not getting any tax revenue to support these programs at all
stagflation will occur and he still is putting us into 2 wars like Bush did
If he did that, he will be in handcuffs the next second not because he posed a threat to Obama but because Obama’s facade will slip — as you all know Obama is incapable of saying anything coherent impromptu without his teleprompter. He will say something stupid like he did in that press conference which started Gatesgate.
…REALLY fascinating conversation here; interesting evolution of content (sorry for clumsy wording).
I do need to know, though, who or what is tied to that tree in MN? (Gotta get out more.)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/08/17/obama_administration_says_marriage_law_unfair/