In the days when Bill Clinton was young: We’ll have to say, we’re filled with disgust for the tribal practice of hating and hunting in threes.
That said, we thought Peter Baker wrote an interesting history of the Defense of Marriage Act this week—and we don’t mean that as a compliment. Part of what made the report interesting is the material Baker chose to leave out.
Baker’s report appeared on the front page of Tuesday’s New York Times. For starters, we were struck by this recollection of the congressional politics of DOMA:
BAKER (3/26/13): Mr. Clinton was the first president to openly court gay Americans...Baker is a bit stingy with his facts at this point. As he notes, the DOMA passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming, veto-proof margins. But he fails to gift us with any numbers or names.
As a presidential candidate in 1991, Mr. Clinton flew to California for a meeting arranged by the political strategist David Mixner and other gay rights supporters. “They were pretty skeptical of the governor of Arkansas, as you can imagine,” recalled Mickey Kantor, Mr. Clinton’s campaign chairman at the time. But over two and a half hours, Mr. Kantor said Mr. Clinton won them over with “his empathy, his emotional connection.”
He tripped up in the early days of his presidency by underestimating the opposition to opening the military to gays and lesbians and accepted the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise that required they keep their sexual orientation secret. So when Republicans proposed the Defense of Marriage Act in an election year, Mr. Clinton resolved not to get burned again.
The bill passed with overwhelming margins, enough to override a veto. He hoped to avoid calling attention to it with his post-midnight signature. Mike McCurry, the press secretary, got a call at home asking if they should wait until morning to announce it. “His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996,” Mr. McCurry recalled.
Why embarrass anyone else? People, it just isn't done!
Let’s help. Even Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA—but then, so did a large majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress. By our count, five future Democratic presidential candidates voted in favor of DOMA. So did six Democratic House members who later went to the Senate.
These are just a few of the Democrats who voted in favor of DOMA. Again, this is just a sampling from two much larger groups (links below):
Democrats in the Senate who voted in favor of DOMA:The measure passed the Senate, 85-14. It passed the House, 342-67. Did we mention the fact that Wellstone, Biden, Bradley and Daschle all voted in favor of DOMA before it reached Clinton’s desk? Not to mention Gephardt, Mikulski, Reid and Reid, Harkin, Levin and Durbin.
Biden, Bradley, Daschle, Dodd, Harkin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Wellstone
Democrats in the House who voted in favor of DOMA:
Blumenauer, Bonior, Cardin, Clyburn, Cummings, DeLauro, Dicks, Durbin, Fazio, Flake, Frost, Gephardt, Hoyer, Johnson, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Levin, Lowey, Obey, Reed, Rush, Schumer, Torricelli, Wynn
Baker was a bit stingy when it came to such facts. But then, Baker has always been a bit of a Clinton-hater. As journalism, the second part of the passage which follows is just extremely strange stuff:
BAKER: In his second term, Mr. Clinton became the first president to address the Human Rights Campaign, and he nominated James Hormel as the first openly gay ambassador. “He stood up for me when he really didn’t have to,” Mr. Hormel said last week.Journalism schools should study that second paragraph. For starters, in what way does the first sentence in that paragraph connect to the second and third?
Mr. Clinton did not back off the marriage law. As late as 2004, when 11 states put measures against same-sex marriage on the ballot, Mr. Clinton privately advised John Kerry to endorse a constitutional ban, according to Newsweek’s history of the campaign. Matt McKenna, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, called that account “completely false.”
Does it connect at all? Except as slick insinuation?
Beyond that, did Bill Clinton “privately advise John Kerry to endorse a constitutional ban” on same sex marriage? That has always struck us as an unlikely proposition. Is there any sign that Baker has any idea if it’s true?
We were struck by one other part of Baker’s report. In the passage which follows, Baker encourages us to think that Clinton has been “opportunistic” every step of the way.
This has always been the controlling script of mainstream Clinton-haters:
BAKER: With the Supreme Court now taking up a challenge to part of the Defense of Marriage Act, [Clinton] concluded he had to finally address the law he had helped enact.We’re sorry that Baker dragged Birch into this. In our view, Birch was the most effective political spokesperson of the past twenty years. That said, her quoted statement seems a bit silly to us. (There is, of course, no way to know the entirety of what she may have told Baker.)
While he declined to join a friend-of-the-court brief filed by former senators, Mr. Clinton wrote by hand an op-ed article for The Washington Post. He said he signed the law to head off a worse outcome, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but realized now that “the law is itself discriminatory” and “it should be overturned.”
To supporters of the law, Mr. Clinton’s new position seemed as opportunistic as his original one did to the other side. His “shifting views on marriage are precisely why we have an independent judiciary,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage. “The Constitution is not designed to shift with momentary political winds.”
To some gay supporters, the statement was inadequate. “I would like him to say that it was always wrong and, even if he felt forced into making a political calculation, he’s deeply sorry that it became the law,” said Elizabeth Birch, who headed the Human Rights Campaign in 1996.
Mr. Mixner agreed but said the change was enough. “The purpose of a movement is to change minds, not in some Stalinistic way to punish those who are not ideologically pure,” he said. “We created a safe place where he could change his mind.”
Should Clinton say he’s deeply sorry that DOMA became the law? According to Baker, Mixner said that he rejects the “Stalinistic” feel of such a suggestion. Repeating our strong belief that Birch was a major hero of the 1990s, we’d be inclined to agree.
Alas! Same-sex marriage wasn’t yet ripe in 1996. For that reason, Republicans crafted a measure, and a long string of major Democrats voted for it, long before it reached Clinton’s desk.
So many Democrats voted for it that a veto would have been overwhelmed. But what a shame that Clinton didn’t veto the measure anyway! We could have had the best of both worlds: DOMA would have passed anyway, and Dole might have gone to the White House!
In the past few years, we have all been able to see how childish, lazy and dumb we liberals actually are. Part of our eternal dumbness lies in this:
The president isn’t our Daddy! We can’t always turn to Bill or Barack and insist that he use the bully pulpit to solve all our problems, the way Daddy always did.
These presidents have labored in difficult settings. In many ways, the difficulties have been created by the lazy uselessness of our imitation liberal journalists and by our non-existent career liberal institutions.
In our view, Birch was a superlative spokesperson during the 1990s, when conservative spokespersons felt less need to be polite to gay and lesbian representatives. In general, though, our pseudo-liberal tribe is easily conned, and our careerist leaders are lazy and dishonest. As a group, we refuse to fight until we can do so in packs.
Along come wormy fellows like Baker. In his rather selective piece, you can read the rest.
Allegedly opportunistic behavior by the numbers: In the House, Democrats voted in favor of the DOMA, 118-65. To read all their names, just click here.
In the Senate, Democrats also voted in favor, 32-14. For all the names, click this.
Daddy couldn’t help us back then—but no, it wasn’t just Bill Clinton. The political groundwork hadn’t been laid—but luckily, people like Birch continued to struggle and work, in ways which were very smart.
People like Baker continued to type. In accord with their deathless scripts, the term "opportunistic" will be dropped on one head only.
Today, the politics has changed; we liberals are bravely hating in threes. It’s very hard to have much respect for horrible people like us.
"But what a shame that Clinton didn’t veto the measure anyway! We could have had the best of both worlds: DOMA would have passed anyway, and Dole might have gone to the White House!"ReplyDelete
OK, so here you tell us that Clinton's veto would have been futile, and he possibly could have lost the White House.
But of course, there is nothing at all "opportunistic" about that political calculus. And why?
"The political groundwork hadn’t been laid"
And whose fault was that? Why, of course! "Childish, lazy and dumb" liberals!
Has nothing to do with the right wing milking this for as long as they could as a very effective wedge issue to drive their fundamentalist, Christian base to the polls, does it?
There's a difference between "opportunistic" and "suicidal," or better yet, "stupid."Delete
I'm beginning to think, given the quality of the comments, that this blog would be better with comments turned off.
The comments aren't fantastic, but they're not "lizard-brain" drivel either. The comments on this blog (aside from the predictable David in Cal) are what most writers would consider valuable feedback. If this blog is just going to be a rant in the wilderness, then sure, turn off the comments. If this blog is going to be an effort to have an impact on political media, then the comments should be given strong consideration.
I don't mean to say that TDH needs to seek approval and applause from its audience...but it's not just tribal heckling that this blog encounters.
Did Clinton throw some Democratic Party values and voters under the bus to get elected? Most people would agree that he did. The welfare program reforms he signed into law would be a clear example of that. Could Clinton have been elected twice without "moving to the center?" Probably not. Saying that he was "opportunistic" is hardly defamatory, but rather a reasonable description of his attitude towards politics--an attitude which has been, on the whole, pretty successful.
The whole criticism about pseudo-liberals refusing " to fight until we can do so in packs" isn't very convincing to readers in the context of the political realities of a two-party system--which is something that TDH has noted. So why would TDH conclude: "It’s very hard to have much respect for horrible people like us."
A lot of the comments here are nothing more than bashing. We could say that bashing is "valuable feedback," but much of it is so relentlessly stupid that it's, well, relentlessly stupid. Somerby does paint with a needlessly broad brush at times, but he at least consistently has useful things to say, unlike many of his bashers.Delete
Then, instead of asking that the comments be turned off, don't read them. It's not that hard to do. In fact, you have to click on them to access them. If "relentlessly stupid" bothers you that much, then discipline yourself not to make that double-click of the mouse.Delete
But it doesn't really bother me all that much even to read the relentlessly stupid David, who doesn't even bother to read the links before he posts them which quite often refute the very point he is struggling to make.
You see, unlike you and your hero, I don't think people lack the ability to think for themselves and are not that much swayed by the relentlessly stupid. They will used their gray matter and sort through it.
Which is what the First Amendment is all about. It's not about the right to speak only intelligent, well-reasoned ideas. It's also there to protect the ideas that some might find relentessly stupid.
And who knows? Those with functioning brains might dismiss an idea as relentlessly stupid today because it doesn't match up very well with their world view, but upon reflection, they might find at least some truth and wisdom in it tomorrow.
It pleases me to know that I share reading this blog, with someone loaded with grey matter like yourself, someone who chooses to read, and then complain about, this blog, but then delivers stern lectures to people who choose to read, then complain about, the comments.Delete
til - ftw. haha.Delete
But we judge by our own standards here, and the sameReplyDelete
1024 x 768 resolution and IPS LCD screen technology as on
the original iPad.
Have a look at my web page - sex cam
In many ways, and it looks like Redmond isReplyDelete
planning at least three methods of interacting with the device aside from pressing
the usual buttons. Doch auch diejenigen, die sehr gern entscheiden wollen, was die
M�nnerwelt vor der sexcam zu zeigen wie eine Muschi gebumst werden kann.
Nat�rlich wird der Geschlechtsverkehr Sex chat mit sexcam
2 Cam Abenteuer hierdurch zu einem wahren Ereignis, welches sicherlich keiner der Beteiligten jemals wieder vergessen wird.
Feel free to visit my web page; sexchat
ZuneIf you know the Zune HD, then there won't be a ton of hugely talented editors, the ones who keep the text and photos flowing, all listed here. Yes, this is one of many Muslims participating in the inaugural ceremonies this week, the annual SHOT Show was held in Tokyo.ReplyDelete
my weblog: sexcam
You might also gain valuable experience by working or even getting a license vary from state to state, though, first meetings slot machines for sale Philippines with aReplyDelete
client will want to call home. Tags: Registry, registry cleaner review, registry cleaner,
registry adviser at Camp TLC, a camp for kids slot machines for sale in
california back on the autism spectrum. Most states have a way to check the prominent sites to
collect referrals for the slot machines for sales of aircraft.
Feel free to visit my webpage; slots machines for sale
Your blog article is very intersting and fanstic,at the same time the blog theme is unique and perfect,great job.To your success.ReplyDelete
I am always grateful to Bob Somerby for his ability to present history as it actually was rather than as some people would like to remember it. That goes double in this situation where a number of gay friends in Washington have decided that Bill Clinton was an enemy of the gay community and, in the words of one friend of mine, "condemned us to suffer for 17 years" by signing DOMA. How things go in our nation's crapital are never simple but the fact most assuredly is that President Clinton did the best he damn well could in the circumstances. Fortunately, circumstances change and President Obama has benefited from being able to change his position and not be called opportunistic.ReplyDelete
Clinton didn't just sign DOMA (and yes, he should have vetoed it). He campaigned on it. He ran ads on Christian radio stations (i.e., directed at social conservative voters) trumpeting that he defended marriage.ReplyDelete
I don't see why anyone in the LGBT community is required to lionize Clinton's alleged commitment to gay rights. Running on how he saved Western Civilization from Teh Gays is as homophobic as it gets.
Hello there! I know this is kinda off topic but IReplyDelete
was wondering which blog platform are you using for this site?
I'm getting sick and tired of Wordpress because I've had issues with hackers
and I'm looking at options for another platform. I would be fantastic if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.
Feel free to visit my web site - Follow This Link
Hello there. I was considering adding a backlinkReplyDelete
back to your website since both of our websites are centered around
the same topic. Would you prefer I link to you using your website address:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8611810694571930415&postID=8914708216595493190 or web
site title: Blogger: the daily howler. Be sure to let me know at your earliest convenience.
My web site %anchor_text%
Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousinReplyDelete
stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a thirty foot drop, just so
she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now broken and
she has 83 views. I know this is entirely off topic
but I had to share it with someone!
my web page http://hipncooltolivehere.com/
Wonderful blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News.ReplyDelete
Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Cheers
Feel free to visit my homepage: link building company
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your website?ReplyDelete
My website is in the exact same niche as yours and my visitors would genuinely
benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this okay with you.
Take a look at my web-site ... just click the up coming internet page
Excellent post however I was wanting to know ifReplyDelete
you could write a litte more on this topic?
I'd be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Bless you!
My weblog ... Get More Info
Hello! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a collection of volunteersReplyDelete
and starting a new project in a community in the same niche.
Your blog provided us useful information to work on. You have done
a wonderful job!
Also visit my web page link building service 
As the admin of this website is working, no questionReplyDelete
very soon it will be well-known, due to its feature contents.
Here is my webpage - link building package - -
Hello would you mind letting me know which webhost you're utilizing? I've loaded your blog inReplyDelete
3 completely different internet browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most.
Can you recommend a good web hosting provider at a
fair price? Kudos, I appreciate it!
My web-site: complete link building service ()
I'm really loving the theme/design of your site. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility problems? A couple of my blog audience have complained about my blog not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Firefox. Do you have any suggestions to help fix this issue?, more: one way link building ()!ReplyDelete
I'm really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's aReplyDelete
very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and
visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme?
my web-site ... how to get back links
Porno, Porno izle, Türk PornoReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno
Porno izle, Porno, Sikiş izle
Porno, Sex, Porno izle
Porno, Porno izle
Porno Sikiş, Porno, Porno izle
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle
Porno, Porno Sex Sikiş, Porno izle
Porno, Sikiş izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma
Porno, Sikişme izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma
Türk Porno izle, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sex, Türk Sikiş
Porno Film izle, Türk Porno, Sikiş
Porno izle, Porno video seyret
Hành trình trải nghiệm du lịch Grand Central TerminalReplyDelete
Vé máy bay đi Mỹ 1 chiều
Các địa điểm tham quan không thể bỏ qua ở Austin
Du lịch bảo tàng Bowers USA
Trải nghiệm trượt tuyết ở Mỹ
Vé máy bay đi Seattle giá rẻ
Điểm danh những hotel cho chuyến du lịch ngoài trời USA Mỹ
Kinh nghiệm mua vé máy bay đi Mỹ
Vé máy bay đi Mỹ giá bao nhiêu tiền
Sự thật thú vị về Đài tưởng niệm quốc gia núi Rushmore