Hillary, Obama, Gays, and a New Low Post!

In the newest Low Post, Taibbi takes on Hillary’s unforgiveable “Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude” comment regarding homosexuality’s immorality (and Obama’s getting slaughtered for uttering an obvious truth).

Let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton wants the most powerful office in the world, but she can't make her own decision about the morality of homosexuality? She's got to "leave that to others"?

When I read this, I thought to myself: Man, this woman has been living with Bill Clinton way too long. Fifteen years after the 1992 campaign, she's trying to smoke the gay pipe (!) without inhaling. She's just said that homosexuality isn't a choice, that it's something "you are" at birth. If that's what she believes, how could she possibly believe homosexuality is immoral? And if that is what she believes, how could she possibly not answer that question forthrightly? How could she duck Tapper's question there?

There are times, of course, when a politician may be excused for not answering a sticky political question. As the flap over Barack Obama's views about Palestine proved this week, people are not always rational and/or forgiving in the face of political candor. If an Obama can't make a simple declarative factual statement about the suffering of the Palestinian people without being gored on the AIPAC trident and whaled on in a host of heated talk-show segments, it's hard to blame some politicians for keeping their mouths shut when politically controversial topics arise.

...

But that crap doesn't fly with this gay-rights issue. In this case there is no future performance in office one is safeguarding with a careful, poll-tested answer. In this case the very act of answering the question is policy. When you're trying to combat bigotry and ignorance, you need to demonstrate actual human leadership, not computerized hedging. By punting the issue of the morality of homosexuality, Hillary dignifies the question. And let's all be clear about what's going on here. It was the word "morality" that had Hillary spooked.

He then goes on to talk about the worthless pile of crap that is the DLC and their constant need to appease ignorant bigots...like they’re ever going to vote for a Democrat anyway. He’s preaching to the choir, of course, but it always seems worth reading.

Every time Hillary says something horrifically poll-tested and approved by the DLC and James Carville (which, let’s be honest, is at least once a week), I more quickly come to the realization of how much we need Obama* to win. For a number of reasons, he’s the only horse in the race that can both a) serve as the populist force America needs right now (Edwards can do that too), and b) show the world that we regret what’s happened over the last eight years (Edwards can almost do that, but not quite...not yet, anyway).

While I do think Obama has a really good shot to win, there’s still a long battle ahead. Obama was introduced to presidential politics and word-parsing recently when he pointed out something that everybody knows as true—that Palestinians are suffering big-time—and got slaughtered by it, to the point that he had to backtrack and give the standard “We’ll continue to fully support Israel” line.

You mean somebody other than Israelis might be suffering? And...lawdy...we might want to acknowledge it?? Gee, let me find some pearls to clutch. What was he thinking saying something crazy like that? But anyway, that’s the way it is when you’re running for President (as a Democrat, anyway). To some degree, I agree with Taibbi when he says that with the price you pay by being honest, it’s almost understandable when a candidate just goes ahead and toes the party line (in this case, Israel = nothing but good, Palestinians = nothing but evil). That it’s not surprising doesn’t make it okay, as Ali Abunimah summarized below. It’s a long way before the primaries...I still want to aim for idealism and reality in a candidate instead of going into “best of a bunch mediocre options” mode...

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

But to me, Obama* is still the only hope. Hillary is just unbearable at this point. She’s smart, and I’m sure she’d do a better job than a lot of others if she were elected president, but god...the only thing worse than her poll-tested middle-ground I-think-you’re-too-stupid-to-understand-what-I-actually-think statements is when she actually tries to be ‘real.’ Did you hear the accent she adopted when she was speaking in Selma the other day? Does it get any more condescending-sounding than that? I don’t even think she was meaning to do it. I think that was her “in her element,” and she still sounded like she was trying way too hard.

And that’s the primary reason that she can’t be elected. Perception matters, and if Hillary wins, it will look like Democrats and/or Americans are fine with the same-old-same-old of electing politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouth, then create new sides, and talk out of those sides too. The world will continue to think that nothing has changed, even though her stances on issues are (when they’re not exactly the same, anyway) better than Bush’s. Sadly, at best Obama* might only be 10-15% different/better than Hillary or anybody else, and while that does fill me with a bit of a “Why do I even care then?” spirit, that 10% really can matter, especially as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

In other words, Mr. Obama*, I really really want to care and feel passionate about a candidate, and you* are the only hope at the moment. Aim higher.


* Any time you see Obama’s name, you can put “(or maybe Edwards)” in parentheses. He honestly probably has the best ideas at the moment, but I just don’t see him getting off the ground. His only hope, though, is it’s March 2007. Ten months before the primary season. Lots and lots will happen between now and then. But until I see him taking off, it’s Hillary vs Obama.