by jgarcia, Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:16:04 AM EDT
There are several reasons I am flipping, as of now, to supporting Hillary Clinton from John Edwards:
1. The first, and most prevalent reason is the shots that John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards have been taking at Hillary Rodham Clinton.
2. The second reason, and I've been thinking about this since the LOGO debate, is I believe that Hillary simply likes gay people. Period. And, thus, I have a lot of confidence that she would do the most of any of the top-tier candidates to help us.
3. The final reason - and, yes, this is kind of petty and relates, to a lesser extent to reason number one - is all the vitriol this woman receives here and on all the rest of the liberal blogs. I'm fucking tired of it. And, I am sorry, but a lot of it is tinged with misogyny.
the analysis below the fold
by Nancy Scola, Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 09:04:15 AM EST
General John Shalikashvili,
former joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, said
in an op-ed this week that change is needed on our Don't Ask,
Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass (DADT) policy for gay servicemembers. (While the oft-dropped "Don't Pursue" has always
been part of the policy, seems as if Defense Department added
the bit on harassment in 2000.) DADT is a Washington creation,
a compromise made by the whole city. In 1992, at the White House,
Clinton wanted to issue an executive order opening the military
to gay soldiers. Across the river, the Pentagon objected. Up on
Capitol Hill, the Senate got a moratorium on any policy change and
commenced to hold a series of hearings. When through the months,
a "don't ask, don't tell" consensus emerged, a battered
Clinton claimed it as his new plan. Congress passed the compromise
into law, Clinton signed it, and the Defense Department implemented
it as policy for U.S. armed servicemembers throughout the world.
The relevant section of the law, 10
U.S.C § 654, reads in part:
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a
propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create
an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order
and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military
Perhaps natural for policy made in the way this one was, in practice it's confusing
stuff. Testifying before Congress at the time, even then Defense
Secretary Les Aspin wasn't sure whether or not a declaration like "I am a homosexual" would result in a military separation.
In many ways, the policy today is nobody's child. No one really
wants to claim it as their own. As it stands, power to change it rests with Congress, who can pass new law to guide DOD regulations.
The process of getting Congress to pass such a law would be greatly
eased by getting DOD buy-in. And for its part, DOD has long argued
that its hands are tied by Congress. (The statement
Undersecretary of Defense is fairly typical of the Pentagon's
public stand on the matter: "The Department's position is to
administer the law in a manner that is both fair and consistent.")
by Andre Walker,
The big news circulating throughout the blogosphere Tuesday afte