RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Senator Clinton, unplugged
March 14, 2007 9:52 AM
This morning on Good Morning, America, we ran an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in which she called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's head.
"The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton said (CLICK HERE FOR MORE) "and the Attorney General -- who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country -- should resign."
I also asked her how this at all differed from the move in 1993 when he husband asked all 93 US Attorneys to resign.
"This is a great difference," she said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It is not done on case-by-case basis where you didn't do something that some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigation into opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh.' Every president has done that.
"This happening now with this administration is actually quite rare," she went on. "There's been some research done that concluded it's hardly ever happens and it happened with so many people and it apparently was going to happen with more. We now are hearing stories that basially the White House wanted to change all the US Attorneys for political and personal reasons. I think this raises serious questions."
What should happen with Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, who is accused by the former US Attorney there have trying to improperly pressure him politically?
"I think there will be appropriate investigations by the Congress into all of these allegations. That's what should happen. We need to shine a bright light -- there needs to be accountablity."
The White House says these US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time.
"There is maybe a technical correctness to that. but it hasn't happened," she said. "As I said there has been a study that went back and looked and this is extremely rare that a US Attorney is removed before his term his up because of political pressure on him, removed because he wont' follow a party line that should disturb everyone -- Republicans and Democrats."
Clinton added that "another issue I'm disturbed about with the Attorney General is the misuse of these national security letters, going after people's records without appropriate documentation and following the letter of the law. That's going right to the heart of privacy protections and constitutional protections that people deserve to have. This administration has kind of played fast and loose with the law for quite some time. And we are aware that they like to do things their own way, but now there's a Democratic congress and we're not going to turn a blind eye, we are going to hold hearings, we're going to try to get to the bottom of what happened because the American people deserve to know."
I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is "immoral." Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law -- signed by her husband in 1993 -- was a mistake, and if homosexuality is "immoral."
"General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is not working," she said. "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war -- when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army -- we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are."
But is it immoral?
"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "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 make sure they can."
-- jt
March 14, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (42)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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.
Posted by: Frank Chittock | Mar 14, 2007 11:29:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Ryan | Mar 14, 2007 10:27:18 PM
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??
Posted by: Marj | Mar 14, 2007 9:48:40 PM
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.
Posted by: rev2008 | Mar 14, 2007 9:29:29 PM
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.
Posted by: Phil S. | Mar 14, 2007 9:18:41 PM
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).
Posted by: james | Mar 14, 2007 8:45:53 PM
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.
Posted by: just bob | Mar 14, 2007 5:59:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Mark | Mar 14, 2007 5:58:55 PM
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.
Posted by: chris | Mar 14, 2007 5:41:59 PM
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.
Posted by: One_American | Mar 14, 2007 5:36:51 PM
Hillary and Rudy are both getting creamed in the press... Rudy has a drag queen problem and Hillary, well, she's just Hillary:
Posted by: William | Mar 14, 2007 5:34:37 PM
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?
Posted by: danielle | Mar 14, 2007 5:19:41 PM
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.
Posted by: DKNY | Mar 14, 2007 5:08:42 PM
Hilary better keep her mouth shut about who and who should resign! have we forgotten those Clinton years?
Posted by: Earl Williams | Mar 14, 2007 5:07:55 PM
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.
Posted by: mudrose | Mar 14, 2007 4:30:01 PM
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
Posted by: flyover | Mar 14, 2007 4:22:38 PM
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..
Posted by: flyover | Mar 14, 2007 4:17:54 PM
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?
Posted by: chuck | Mar 14, 2007 3:58:40 PM
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.
Posted by: brian | Mar 14, 2007 3:32:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Concerned Voter | Mar 14, 2007 3:21:27 PM
Post a comment
