Hillary Clinton says she's "authentically" against gay marriage...

I had sold myself a bil of goods thinking that Hillary Clinton has not come out in favor of gay marriage because she thinks it would torpedo her presidential aspirations. Apparently not. New York magazine has published some of Clinton's new interview with The Advocate. She tells interviewer Sean Kennedy that her political stance is not a mask for her true feelings: "I would tell you [if it was]," she said to Kennedy. "This is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically."
I see.
I was at The Abbey a few months ago, so excited to see her and caught up in the hoopla. But my feeling is that if you don't support gay marriage in your heart, you don't really believe in equal rights for all. So, the Clinton campaign sign I hung on my refrigerator at home is coming down.
I think she's the smartest person running for president and has the best grasp of all the important issues. I think she wants to make the country better and would - just as her husband did. And if she wins the Democratic nomination, I will likely vote for her, I'm sure.
But I'm not supporting her or any other candidate in the primaries unless they support gay marriage. Now I sorta resent her visit to The Abbey. I don't feel that it was "authentic."
Greg Hernandez has covered the entertainment industry for the Daily
News since 2001. He's considered a bit odd by some for his obsession
with box office numbers, has been known to camp out near the kitchen
at premieres for first crack at the hors d'oeurves, and Greg's never
seen a red carpet he didn't want to stroll down.
Comments
First, it is admirable that you expect any kind of REAL leadership from any of the candidates. I have just about given up.
Second, Clinton's mushy explanation and tap dancing clearly says "I would like to say yes, but I can't as it might lose me some votes."
Finally, when you think about it, I have to say I don't blame her. I mean why should she? After all, NONE of the Republicans support gay marriage and won't even appear at a debate about gay issues to say so. SO you can't vote for them. She knows if she gets the nomination, we'll vote for her. SO why should she say anything that would alienate a conservative dems just to appease liberal lefties? It might not even make sense when every vote is important and to lose even a few thousand as a result of saying she is pro gay marriage could threaten her chances of getting into office.
So no, I'm not excited about her (in fact, I don't think she's electable) but she may be the best thing we have.
Posted by: doug | September 20, 2007 4:59 PM
If she's the best thing we have there's no point in voting at all.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | September 21, 2007 6:22 AM