This is much worse for Obama than Clinton, since his base is younger and more tolerant than hers.

This is just one more example of the poll & political consultant driven campaigns that Democratic front runners have suffered from in the past.  It's clear that Obama and Hillary are owned by insider interests, and that before uttering a word that will cost them a fraction of a point they'll consult their PR consiglieris.  Clearly they've learned nothing over the past six years.

Yet another example of Obama failing to say anything beyond vague and safe rhetoric.

The belated responses and (non) positions taken by senators Clinton and Obama re: Fox News debates and General Pace's remarks were Dukakis/Kerry moments;  they froze and stammered under the pressure.
Not good enough for this voter.

both have not come out and affirmed it.

We forget - Edwards is a white male.

Obama and Hilary are NOT white males.  As such, both are attempting to do what has never been done before.  Both are, in one sense, more "threatening" than the well-spoken Edwards, just by being who they are.

That threat is exacerbated -by their consultants I'm sure, and probably in reality - if in any way they get out front on various social issues.  

They HAVE to stay uncontroversial, middle of the road on social issues.  Their candidacy is controversial enough.

Edwards (who by the way I support as well) has room to be more out there on the social edge.

I think it's important to keep in mind that Obama's comments weren't part of a speech, or a debate or a position paper. This was an ambush, intended to generate a five second sound bite that could be used against him (no matter what he said).

Which is not to say that Obama gave a particularly good answer yesterday, but the answer he gave shouldn't be mistaken for his "position" on the subject, especially when he's already gone on record as to what his position actually is.

For example:

I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex -- nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. (Audacity of Hope, pg. 222, emphasis mine)

I remember when Edwards was posed this question on one of the morning shows earlier in the year, he said he wasn't there yet. No dithering around. ANd he added empahtically that he was behind the times and that his wife and kids were already at thata point of acceptance and his kids generation was already there. Not the best answer for gay rights advocates, but it was very straightforward.

Okay according to the New York Times, Hillary's first answer was longer and she too had an answer #2.

Ans#1:"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude." She added, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country, and I want to make sure they can."

Ans#2: (Wed Night) thru spokesman: I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple," she said "It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world."

It certainly isn't as straight forward as Senator Warner, but much longer than the post indicate.

This is the probelm with primaries that start 6 months too early.  We waste our time with these self defeating litmus tests that pretty much tell us nothing about the candidates and are designed to slander a couple of good reps.

When did Edwards give his statement?  Anybody have that?

rashomon,

So are you saying it was the nasty, snarky reporter's fault for asking one of the prime supporter of Joe Lieberman (an authority on morality)a simple question?

Chris,

Its just lack of guts. Period. It seems to have been the Dems week to collectively display their lack of guts and beholding to the neocons. See Iran.  

It does have a Kerry-Dukakis vibe!  Clinton's trategy was a good one--link her comments to Warner's to sustain her "moderate" image, but the absolutely awful phrasing does make her look like she's hiding behind Warner.  Who's doing her media--Wolfson?

I agree that Obama should have been clear at first. All his prior statements show that he supports gay rights as much as Edwards, I was disappointed he didn't show that.

Anyway, more fishing (read the NYtimes) shows that Obama also flatly said he does not believe that homosexuality is immoral. "[A] spokesman for Mr. Obama said last night that the senator disagreed with General Pace's remarks and believed that homosexuality was not immoral."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/us/pol itics/15gays.html?_r=1&ref=politics& amp;oref=slogin

Why Obama didn't say this initially I don't know. Maybe it was the flyby nature of the interview by newsday. At any rate, I was disappointed.

I don't blame Chris for this post and I don't think it is unfair.

What I do find unfair is that save for the blogger incident the frontpage is never critical of Edwards but largely critical of Obama.

The frontpage did not contain a single mention of Bob Shrums' issue with John Edwards on his vote for the iraq war. Not a peep. Why? How This website cares deeply about the war yet when this information comes out no one writes a thing.

If shrum is right, Edwards voted for the war based on political calculation. That's sad. Edwards denies this, but that could be included in a frontpage post.

So basically I want evenhanded coverage of our candidates by the leaders of this blog. One major problem I had with Chris endorsing Edwards so early is it leads to these types of issues.

...they are too progressive. Maybe they're right.

Somebody might have already said this, but Obama cannot come out and say homosexuality is immoral if he wants more of the black vote (well maybe now that Hilary has). Obama needs the black vote, give him a break. We know where he stands on this issue.

The question that would be more important to me is "do you think gays should get equal rights," I don't care if a candidate thinks homosexuality is immoral so long as they support gay rights.

I love the way Hillary's statement (meaning it was thought out)pointed to the fact that she heard feedback from her "friends in gay community".  Ah, I think it, the feedback, was from more than the gay community.

It's amazing to me that after all the hubbub from this blog and DK about the NV debate, that you and Markos fall for a hit piece from a wingnut news organization.

Simply amazing.

I can't say I'm too surprised about Hillary's statement and correction. She's been around enough, pretty sure she knew exactly what she meant to say.

Regarding Obama, I don't think this shows any lessening of his support for gay right, civil unions etc.

What it says to me is less about his ideas and more about his campaign and that he has a bit to learn. I think it shows his inexperience on the national stage.

And I dont think this is a "gotcha" question. The pace statement and the uproar have been on the news for a bit now; everyone should be aware of it and any presidential candidate, especially those who support gay rates, should of course be expected to answer it.

Hillary was the only Dem candidate who spoke at the Human Rights Commission meeting last week. Obama and Edwards were too busy to attend.

The gay community and Hillary Clinton are in support of each other.  

This nitpicking about every single thing a candidate says is exactly why our candidates are so careful.  Anyone who took the time to do a little research would find out where Hillary stands on gay issues.  But no, what we get instead, from the netroots reactionary types, is immediate assumptions that are simply not true.

I have a question too.

Is the constant and obvious "gotcha" posts against Barack Obama and the "Just like a Prayer" post geared towards Edwards having something to do with Edwards poll numbers ?

I mean, we are dealing with a smart and suspicious electorate don'c cha know.

;p

This is a joke. The reporter hounds Obama on his way out of the firefighters' event and everyone reacts as if this was an seated interview which Obama froze and then sprinted out. I believe all of the Democratic candidates will be strong on equal rights, and I really don't think it serves any of the candidates to use this as the basis of "gotcha" politics.

Also, this blog is predominantly run by Chris, Matt, Jerome, and Jonathan, and they have the right to say or support whatever they please, as we, as readers, have the right to patronize other blogs.

I think posts like this strengthen Obama and Clinton, for they see how the things they do resonate with voters. My only qualm is one of the last lines... "Get it right the first time. Take the lead. Don't be so damn cautious." While spoken in praise of Edwards's recent actions, personally, I am reminded of Edwards's Iraq vote, his 2004 campaign, and debate with Dick Cheney. We don't know what Clinton or Obama will do, but we've seen what Edwards can do.... win one state.

p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 p8 p9 p10 p11 p12 p13 p14 p15 p16 p17 p18 p19 p20 p21 p22 p23 p24 p25 p26 p27 p28 p29 p30 p31 p32 p33 p34 p35 p36 p37 p38 p39 p40 p41 p42 p43 p44 p45 p46 p47 p48 p49 p50 p51 p52 p53 p54 p55 p56 p57 p58 p59 p60 p61 p62 p63 p64 p65 p66 p67 p68 p69 p70 p71 p72 p73 p74 p75 p76 p77 p78 p79 p80 p81 p82 p83 p84 p85 p86 p87 p88 p89 p90 p91 p92 p93 p94 p95 p96 p97 p98 p99 p100