Political Punch

There is a simple answer to many of these questions. A person's sexual life is their business. The Clintons' marriage problems were solved and they are still together. Basta. Anyone interested in someone else's sexual life is simply engaging in prurient voyeurism.

A person's religious views, if they are running for office, are no longer private. We have had two Crazy Christians in power, and they both were disasters and caused untold suffering in foreign nations. Reagan and Bush 43. And they are terrible accountants to top it off.

there is nothing wrong with bill clinton supporting these people. but the fact that they are this way is wrong!!! god did not make women to be with women or man to be with men. but anyways its his choice wither or not he wants to support them just like its their choice to be gay

Finally, I got some details on the circumstances behind Clinton's firing of all 93 US attorneys in 1993. I'd be interested to know what his reason was for doing that.

Is it really a surprise when a politician changes the subject when asked a question. Yes, it is irritating beyond belief, but it is actually indicative of their answer.

Hillary talks about her Religious Roots:
Well there's an old saying that “Man does no greater evil than that which he does through religious conviction”.
Someone ought to ask her if she has ever had a lesbian experience, then ridicule her for doing what the Clintons do best “That depends on what you mean by Lesbian”.

Hillary Clinton tolerating Bill Clinton's immoral bevavior while he was president disqualifies Hillary from the presidency, in my view.

She is a liar and very divisive. I pity those who believe a word she says.

I contacted Senator Clinton's Website to get help for a family in need. I have a sister who can't work due to neuropthy; she is a diabetic. Has two boys - William age 15 and Joey age 13. The boys lost their dad this past November 2006.

The family is in need of help. I sent 12 emails thru her campaign website. I rec'd 10 emails asking me to donate to her election.

Just as bad when I asked Senator Schumer's NY City Ofc and had a lady hang up on me saying: "OH WE DON'T HELP PEOPLE AND FAMILIES."

Just Uncle Paul Here

Paul

I find it a terrible for a journalist to ask this question.

She did not volunteer her moral views on this topic, General Pace did, and I believe the answer she gave you was enough (and I'm a gay male.)

I think this is just a case of too much zeal from a journalist, and straying from the topic at hand.

General Pace should be commended for speaking the truth at a time when doing so has almost become a crime. Homosexuality is immoral. No amount of PR will change that fact. The majority of Americans follow Christianity and accept the teachings of God and Christ concerning the sin of homosexuality, described as an abomination to God and humanity. Equating homosexuality with ethnicity or skin color is absurd. God would not condemn something we have no control over. I can imagine Noah’s peers deriding him and demanding that he apologize for spreading nonsense that no one else believed. Up until the time the water level hit their waste, I expect.

The suggestion that General Pace should apologize for speaking the truth is a dangerous precedent in a nation founded on freedom of expression - a veritable chilling slippery slope like those so popular with left-wing members of our judiciary who expand their Constitutional boundaries and set themselves up as totalitarian legislators. If the majority of Americans are forced by law to accept the practice of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice, how long will it be before our Bible classes and pulpits are censored? The logical conclusion to forced acceptance of homosexuality would place teaching the immorality of it as equally unacceptable as, say, teaching that it is immoral to be female or of a particular ethnic descent. Setting standards for acceptable behavior is necessary for the survival of any society, but it does not rob anyone of their choice. It is not a question of choice but of consequences. We have a multitude of laws that prohibit all sorts of behavior that we as a society, through our Constitutional responsibility of self-government, have deemed unacceptable. Setting those standards of behavior has obviously not robbed anyone of their choice, or free will, since the news is full of violators every day. They made that choice because they were willing to risk the consequences. America is long overdue for a return to its Constitutional foundation - that the source of our rights, responsibilities, and human dignity is our Creator - the truth of which was fully accepted by our founders and the truth that has made America a great nation. Many of the problems our government has tried for decades to solve with program on top of program, funding after funding, have been caused by our allowing America to deviate from that simple truth.

It is true that Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That statement is usually taken out of context and misused. Jesus spoke those words to a group of men who were preparing to stone to death a woman who had been found in adultery. When the men left, Jesus then told the woman, "Go and sin no more." Jesus did not deny that her behavior had been immoral. Acknowledgement of behavior that has been declared immoral by God is not casting stones, passing judgment, nor hypocritical. Turning a blind eye to immoral behavior or adopting an anything goes policy has been the downfall of many great civilizations. Faith in God is the strongest barrier to socialist hedonism. Karl Marx believed this and considered religion to be the opiate of the masses and an impediment to the implementation of his demonstrably flawed system. I personally think television is the biggest public opiate, but that’s a whole other ballgame. There are two quotes that relate well to this issue of homosexuality and the responsibility of leaders and citizens to speak out. The first is from Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead, "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." The second is from Thomas Mann, author of Buddenbrooks, for which he received the Nobel Prize for literature, "Tolerance becomes a crime when it is applied to evil." America’s success has been due to its foundation of faithfulness to the standards of the Divine Creator. Those standards have been a continual thread throughout our nation’s history and our continued prosperity and strength depends upon that thread remaining intact.

Its curious to me that when it comes to ancient writings, people are content to accept them as legitimate except when it comes to the Bible. No one doubts the authenticity of the writings of Confucius, Plato, or Aristotle. No one doubts the first hand testimony of ancient historians, yet when it comes to the events recorded in the Bible, writings that have stood the test of time and maintained their chain of accuracy for thousands of years its always - prove it. I say, prove that it isn't. Is it not to be accepted as fact because you yourself did not witness it? Do you accept the fact of Nero’s burning of Rome or the fact of Christians being used as torches and thrown to lions or the degeneracy of Caligula’s rule? Why should the accounts of those events be any more acceptable than first-hand accounts written by those who walked with Jesus? The declaration of homosexuality is not limited to the Old Testament. It is continued in the New Testament in the writings of Paul to the Corinthians. God would not declare homosexuality an abomination and then cause people to uncontrollably practice homosexuality. We are all tempted by many different things but that does not mean we have no choice over engaging in those activities that tempt us. I do not hate homosexuals any more than I hate gossips, liars, thieves, or murderers. What I hate is the sin to which we can so easily succumb and which, if not for the grace of God and salvation through Jesus Christ, would condemn us for all eternity. Followers of Christ neither advocate nor endorse violence or abuse toward those who practice homosexuality, and true, enduring peace and happiness can only be achieved through accepted the salvation of Christ and the grace of God.

Is it really too much to expect her to say that she does not think homosexuality is immoral? If she can't even say that, how can she stand up for gay rights?

She still needed to answer the question because it was her husband who put it into law and we all know that she had input on it, very little went by his desk without her two cents. She needs to explain why she supported it then but doesn't now.

Also, being someone with a linguistic background, I would love to know where the comment about gays providing much needed translation skills is founded from. What the hell is that all about? So, does that mean that every male foreign language teacher and translator in the country in gay? Somebody contact the NEA!!!

memyself. You are disturbingly ignorant and malicious. First you say that gays are so pathologically sex-obsessed that they are probably out of control of their own behavior when they hit on straight people. Then you say that gays are more likely than straight people to become STALKERS. Imagine the foolishness of giving THESE PEOPLE guns, you exclaim. You conclude that they are crazy enough to start shooting straight soldiers for spurning their advances!

memyself. The word homophobe was coined to describe people like you. (There are a lot of other words that describe you, honey, but ABC won't let me use them here.)

It really is a stupid question and a lost chance for Hillary to demonstrate some insight. She should have turned the question around, to ask whether heterosexuality is moral. Why not ask if the sun is moral? Homosexuality, whether you consider such a personal choice, or set pattern of behavior is never a moral question. Like anything else, it can manifest itself as good or bad, constructive or destructive, the foundation to a life of fulfillment or failure.

This is a red herring. The issue is the liberty - that is, the government should not impose a code of conduct on military members that concerns their sexual orientation. Hilary endorses the liberty. Whether or not whatever one does behind closed doors comports with her moral or religious code is irrelevant.

Analogize to reproductive rights and abortion: at issue is respect for a woman's right to choose. If an individual respects a woman's right to choose, then it doesn't matter what that individual personally believes about the moral status of a fetus. Many pro-choicers are personally opposed to abortion. But they don't foist their views onto others. That's the point.

Likewise, Hillary is expressing respect for the freedom to be homosexual, and disapproves of the governmental or military policy that sets limits thereon. Her personal views on homosexuality are not relevant.

Which brings me back to the fact that the question itself is a red herring, designed to make her look spineless, when in fact she answered the question correctly. The issue is the liberty, which she respects.

dkny--if homophobes were banned from the military, that would probably include 70% of the people there. The fact is, the military has a point. In the military, men must shower together, sleep together, et. Not many straight men want to endure (no matter how politely done) another man ogling them while they are washing, or propositioning them--no matter how politely. I happen to be the mother of 3 very gorgeous men, one of which is very, very, drop dead gorgeous. He is constantly approached by gay guys who proposition him. It's like they can't help themselves. Usually he smiles and just says no thanks but some are insistent. They say (right in front of me) things like: "How do you know you don't like men if you never tried one? Or when he says he is not interested: "Sure you aren't that's what they all say" then they still try to slip him numbers etc.

Interestingly enough, I have had a similar problem with both sexes but gay people (like some heterosexuals) can be very persistent. On at least 3 occassions I was stalked and even had my car vandalied (spray painted, tires slashed) because I spurned a woman's affections.

What does this have to do with the military? Imagine these types of incidences among people with guns in their hands. Or worse yet, imagine some Rambo who forever proclaims he is straight but who starts to prey on gay personnel--as in raping other men. Gays should be able not only to serve, but also to tell when someone means them harm--right now they can't. From a pragmatic standpoint it may be very hard to integrate the military to true gay openess. If it happens, look for hate crimes against gays to skyrocket from rape and unwanted attention from wannabees to paranoid young guys who imagine they are a gay man's target interest and wants to prove how much of a 'real man' he and his buddies are...by teaching someone a lesson.

But the real crux is 'friendly fire'. Right now, almost 1/4 of all our casualties are cause by our own soldiers --to their own--no one knows if incidents were true accidents or retribution but when the ban lifts, if the war is still going on, look for more incidents like that. This does not mean the military should not allow gay people in (after all, in letting felons in, many will have been involved in homosexual relationships in prison) but due to the many complex issues, it is something that must be considered and weighed very carefully otherwise, we not only lose a majority of a fighting force but we make those who are gay, potential martyrs or victims to an ideal not the reality.

Perhaps when politicians take an oath of office in America, he/she should take the oath on a copy of the US Constitution not the bible. The elected official swears to uphold the Constitution not the bible/koran/torah. Homosexuality would be out according to those books.

Maybe Hilary did not come out and say the gay lifestyle is immoral because she actually THINKS or BELIEVES it is immoral--but actually for all of you posters who need personal vaidation from a leader--get a clue.

The leader of our country must preside over such a complex and disparate set of people, subcultures, etc that NO ONE could possibly take office without running amuck of some of them. MAYBE to Hilary, and Obama and Edwards--strip clubs are immoral, ANY sex outside of marriage (as the bible repeatedly states) is immoral, maybe drinking is immoral and maybe also gambling.

It actually is NOT the point. What is important is whether the sitting President will uphold and respect the rights of each of us to determine our own personal course when it comes to personal morality--as long as it does not negatively impact Society as a whole.

This would mean that those who choose to gamble, strip, or live in Adult consensual relationships married or not do not end up with legislation that tries to hinder or destroy them.

THAT is what a good leader does. NOT believe in your cause or mine--just have and respect the constitution NOT pander to your ideas or mine.

so called Christians who believe in the bible, would have to believe that homosexuality is immoral since it says so in the Old and New Testament and God reserves the sentiment of it being an "abomination" which means a really, really evil sin.

Gays may not like it, some straights may not like it and so they ignore those verses, rewrite or reinterpret that book or asdopt doctrine--but I would be suspicious of ANY self proclaimed Christian who said they believed otherwise.

Similarly, I doubt if we have had too many Presidents that were really racially or gender tolerant. What we have had are Presidents who knew that their personal beliefs and feelings should never drive the agenda in the White House save this one: the ability to unite, lead, direct all Americans based on existing laws under the auspices of the Constitution --which must be protected at all costs.

How Republicans must be laughin---to take their wedge issue and somehow allow gay sentiment or others to be manipulated just because someone thinks what you do is immoral--to allow it to drive your political choices...is pathetic. It makes all who kowtow to sentiment (Edwards and Obama included) posible Charlatans and the people who demand that validation a needy pawn--easy to manipulate by a few words.

I personally never cared for Hilary but to be fair, she called this right--never forget that a President who will respect our laws and the rights of others (No matter their skin color or their sexual preference) will surround themselves with like minded people. a lot of you on this board act like if someone okays your lifestyle they are on your side--even though we all know that a certain kind of person (politician) will promise and say almost anything to get elected--but what they do when they get in is a different thing. Choosing leaders is NOT a personal thing.

The fact is, personal coinvictions aside...NO ONE should be discriminated against due to sexual preference, gender, race OR BELIEFS. THAT, fellow posters should include how each of us conducts ourselves. Our leaders do not have to like us or condone the things we like or do--kids want that--eternal allegiance to their cause. Adults realie what is more important is the ability of a leader to draw, recognize and enforce line--where their personal beliefs and needs end and each of the rest of ours begins. Here's the clue: What people do with their own body with another consensual adult or by themselves is their own business and actually in reality can never be stopped--whether it is having sex, killing babies growing in them or killing themselves, etc. Laws and attitudes can make life a misery for them but it can never stop them. So wise people don't demand that their leaders believe in their personal existence and life--but that leaders will PROTECT asnd DEFENDeach persons right to decide that for themselves.

Frank Chittock

You seem to believe the idea that all the founding fathers were god fearing. This of course is not true many of the more prominant founding fathers were not christians. Ex: Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams. It is a common misconsception and I would encourage you to research the matter on your own.

This tells me that she is not ready to be a leader. I am not a John Edwards supporter, but he at least is brave enough to call for ending the ban on gays in the military. She said the ban is "not working" but would not, like Edwards,commit to ending it. Nor was she willing to speak the words that gays are moral people. I hope she are embarrassed and ashamed. If someone had asked if African-Americans were immoral or not, would she also "leave that for others to conclude"? I doubt it.

I am an Obama man all the way, but if she got the nomination instead I would have voted for her. That ended today.

America appears to have lost the purpose of our founding fathers - part of which was to create a godly country that included strict morality. Would to God that we had more political leaders not ashamed to speak out against the evils [moral decay] of our day, and lead our country in righteousness, holiness, and godliness. I'm afraid that Mrs. Clinton and others presently running for president have failed class 101 on good judgment.

Hillary is pathetic... and I agree, I no longer understand why gays and lesbians support her. John Edwards can state unequivocally that he does not believe homosexuality is immoral. Even conservative Republican Senator John Warner from Virginia stated clearly that he does not believe homosexuality is immoral. She's a pathetic meandering politician who's now trying to pull more center in order to get more votes. Hopefully the gay and lesbian community wakes up and sees she does not have their best interest in mind, but just their votes.

It is not up to any politician to be a homosexual's spititual advisor. It is the job of an elected official to make sure all citizens are given all the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. The bible that a president puts his/her hand on to take the oath of office tells us that homosexuality is WRONG! So now what??

Hillary speaks carefully because words do matter. politicians in the usa should not be the arbiters of morals. morality is not in general a question of law but of religion. hillary personally may or may not believe homosexuality is immoral but what is really important are the laws she will enact. i do not think she avoided a question, but rather set limits on what she feels is her appropriate domain of discussion.

If harmless things like being gay is immoral, why should we care about morality?

Real morality is about compassion. Pointless rules about sex are just part of the false morality taught by religions.

I too like, General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believe that homosexuality is immoral. I was in the military and it does demoralize the soldiers. It's a question of trust and character. Also, it's sin (homosexuality).

What of all the FBI files she and her people were caught with?
Yes it is unusual to fire a US Attorney for political purposes. Senator Boxer requested one of those firings though.

So much for Obama standing up and being courageous. He just ducked the question about the morality of homosexuality as well.

As reported at politico.com:

Newsday caught Obama as he was leaving the firefighters convention and asked him three times if he thought homsexuality is immoral.

Answer 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."

Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.

John Warner, a Republican, has psoken out CLEARLY on the issue...yet the two leading Democratic candidates are running scared...pure cowardice.

Whether it's immoral or not is not so much the question as it's discrimination agaisnt straights!-imagine if women had to show with a straight guy possibly (probably) oogling at them. That would be considered outragious and yet that is exactly what straights have to contend with in teh military! how does that help the military--epend the masses for the sake of teh very few? Give me a break1 It's politically motivated.

Hillary will say whatever she thinks she has to in order to get elected.

She is a chameleon; she changes her color to match her surroundings.

The second biggest phoney to ever enter politics, next to her husband.

Hillary and Rudy are both getting creamed in the press... Rudy has a drag queen problem and Hillary, well, she's just Hillary:

I agree with Hillary, I dont believe we should turn away individuals that want to fight for this country, based on their sexual preference. What does it really matter?

mudrose, if you're saying no one in the military should be able to mention/display photos/exchange correspondence with their significant others, whether same same sex or opposite, I guess that's OK, but that's probably going to induce people to not join.

Hilary better keep her mouth shut about who and who should resign! have we forgotten those Clinton years?

Hillary will make herself a minister and perform gay marriage. She won't say it's immoral because she doesn't want to lose all those single moms she thinks she represents. As far as the military is concerned, it isn't run on sexuality and I think that everyone should keep their sexuality to themselves. It's always about coming out. Give it a rest.

Was the interview live? Is the campaign responsible for no video. Does the candidate control the editing of the interview or the questions? Is the same true for all candidates?

Just wondering

I cannot find a link to the GMA video of the interview. I did find lots of links to Tim Mcgraw and "How to Tell Real Fur From Fake.

I would like to see the interview..

Hillary's right on most everything she says, but I don't understand why she didn't come out and say that homosexuality isn't immoral. Is she trying to pander to conservatives by not doing so?

This is the nail in the coffin for me, for her not to state her own opinion about whether homosexuality is IMMORAL is PATHETIC. I had been considering attending and even volunteering at the upcoming Obama rally in Oakland this just makes me certain I will.

I don't understand WHY so many in the gay community are supporting her. She is unreal. In 1991 Bill Clinton pledged to a gay & lesbian group to lift a ban preventing gays from serving in the military openly. Of course, after he was elected he passed the ban "don't tell, don't ask." According to Hillary's stump speeches, she was involved in every decision made in the Clinton administration.

In 1996 Bill signed the Defensive Marriage Act which prevents a state from having to recognize the legality of a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere in the country. Hillary openly supports the DFA.

She says she supports civil unions but what has she done to this end?

Supportive words come out of her mouth but when it's time to put the pencil to the paper she demonstrates the exact opposite. She does not support gay issues and I don't know why the gay community thinks she does.

Who are the others she's leaving it to to conclude if homosexuality is immoral? Is that how she plans to lead the country? Can't you just hear her saying, "I'll let others decide what to do about national security, poverty, healthcare, the deficit, the Iraq war, etc." And when they figure it out they can tell me so that I can implement it.

She relies heavily on others to tell her what to say and do and that is why everything that comes out of her mouth appears so perfectly scripted. She gets in trouble when asked a question for which she hasn't been prepped.

I think Clinton makes some decent points, but loses her way on the questions of gays in the military. Why wouldn't she come out and say that homosexuality is not immoral? And her position sounds like "as long as we need more human bodies to throw at this debacle in Iraq, we may as well include homosexuals." The position should be very simple: It is wrong to discriminate against people on account of their sexual orientation and for that reason homosexual men and women should be permitted to serve openly in the military. If there is concern for unit cohesion, then ban homophobes from the military.

I'm growing skeptical about both Hillary and the coverage of her by the media (including this blog). Is she reading from a script, or are you all (meaning the media), or both?