Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

We Have A Heart On For Chelsea Clinton

los-chelsea-1.jpg
“Chelsea, the gays love you!” So proclaimed one of the many homos who saw Chelsea Clinton during her gay bar crawl in Philadelphia.

This weekend’s tour of queer duty ain’t the first time Clinton has paid her lavender respects. Just last weekend she made an appearance at an Oregon’s Red Dress event, which raises money to fight HIV/AIDS.

The Philadelphia appearance only cements the young Clinton’s ties with the gays. She stopped by four bars in total and saw an estimated 1,500 queer voters, all of whom seemed excited to see and seen with her.

And we would have been, too.

Here’s MSNBC’s take on the flaming festivities:

Led around the neighborhood by Gov. Ed Rendell, Chelsea was mobbed by local gays and lesbians, as she walked from one club to the next. They ran up to hug her, posed for pictures and certainly invaded her personal space.

“I grabbed her ass,” one young woman exclaimed to her friends after snapping a picture with her arm around the former first daughter.

Most of those at the bar seemed to, squeezing past one another in the cramped space to get a photo. Even some patrons, donning Obama stickers — a rally for the Illinois senator had taken place a few blocks away earlier in the evening — tried to get a snapshot as well.

While some may dismiss Clinton’s campaign involvement as nothing more than political “pimping,” we – surprisingly – believe in Clinton’s sincerity. And, yes, we love her. But, why? It’s certainly not simply because of her biology. Could we have a fondness for the former first daughter because we saw her grow up awkward? We’ve all – gay and straight – experienced the painful alienation of adolescent development, and poor Chelsea had to do it in the national spotlight. The girl – at the age of twelve – became a punchline. But, like the smart, rich girl that she is, Clinton cleaned herself up with a good old fashioned Versace makeover. You know the gays love that shit.

Another reason to love Chelsea: she’s feisty. Remember when she snapped at that man’s Monica Lewinsky question? Who doesn’t love a woman who’s not afraid to bite back? And, finally, we love Chelsea: she’s humble. When the aforementioned man declared the queers’ collective love, Ms. Clinton demured, “Oh, gosh, I don’t know if everybody loves me.”

She’s right – Texan homo-journo Daniel Kusner once described her as an “old fart.”

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Apr 21, 2008
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 12 Comments
    • foofyjim
      foofyjim

      I think us queers have a fascination with Hillary, and by extent Chelsea, much like we do with Judy Garland or Marilyn Monroe. We love women that have been done wrong and find the strength to battle through for a big comeback.

      Apr 21, 2008 at 10:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Z.
      Z.

      GO CHEALSEA GO!

      Apr 21, 2008 at 11:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brent
      Brent

      I have no fascination with any Clinton. Chelsea is irrelevant to the political campaign. If she’s now a liaison to the queer community, we should be asking why her mother failed to speak out for LGBT equality during her eight years as First Lady. She supported her husband’s passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and reaffirmed her support for DOMA when running for the senate. Now Hillary Clinton says marriage equality should be left to the states–a position she’d rightly not take regarding, say, whether interracial couples should be allowed to marry or a woman’s right to choose. So, if Chelsea’s taken the mantle as Queer Outreach Coordinator for her mom’s campaign, don’t fawn when you see her trolling bars–ask her questions that matter and demand answers. Don’t be a tool.

      Apr 21, 2008 at 11:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • queerunity
      queerunity

      Who cares about Chelsea or her mummy or daddy. They are political scum, im so sick of the gay media fascination and admiration of her.

      http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

      Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • todd
      todd

      Chelsea is the sweetner for the bitter pill that Hillary wants us to swallow!

      Apr 21, 2008 at 12:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      As someone once said, Brent, “Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.”

      1. Cheslea’s mom, when she was STILL FIRST LADY, showed her support for gay rights as vividly and as publicly as anyone could when she marched in the bright sunshine down the streets of New York City [behind a guy wearing nothing but a jock strap] for hundreds of thousands, including NONgays, to see in their 2000 Gay Pride Parade. That knowing full well that pictures and video of same could be used against her by the Right Wing someday. And has repeatedly as Senator. Find ONE picture of Obama doing the same in Chicago’s parade. He wouldn’t even be photographed with SF Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 because of Newsom’s identification with gay marriage equality.

      2. In 1999, when she was STILL FIRST LADY, Chelsea’s mom came out against DADT.

      3. In 2000, while she was STILL FIRST LADY, Chelsea’s mom supported both domestic partners benefits and including gays in hate crime laws.

      4. Chelsea’s father had no “passage of DOMA.” Congress passes bills not Presidents. If you can’t get that simple fact right why should anyone believe anything else you claim.

      5. Gov. Bill Richardson, who was in Congress at the time, agreed with Sen. Clinton that the passage of DOMA persuaded the Right Wing not to pursue a Constitutional amendement then—which might very well have passed given the larger number of conservatives in Congress then and how even more antigay the states were. Even since then, all but about 5 have passed their own DOMAs [thus proving that federal DOMA does NOT prevent states from recognizing gay relationships if they want to] or state constitutional amendments.

      6. Obama ALSO has repeatedly said that it should be left up to the states—a right he maintains should continue even with repeal of federal DOMA.

      7. One thing Chelsea’s mom has not done is claim that she is responsible for a gay rights bill when she wasn’t. Obama, in the last few months, has repeatedly claimed that he was a chief cosponsor of and responsible for the passage of Illinois’ LGBT rights law. He was a cosponsor of other bills that failed but was not involved with the one that passed nor even still in the Illinois Senate when it was voted on.

      I’d rather support someone who has grown in their support for gay equality over the years than someone who lies to my face about what he’s done for us.

      Apr 21, 2008 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brent
      Brent

      Leland, my objection to Hillary doesn’t imply support for Obama, so I’ll disregard your Hillary-Is-Better-Than-Obama screed. As for the rest:

      1) Hillary Clinton opposes gay marriage. Period. Marching in gay rights parades is pandering if not backed up by a commitment to full rights, including marriage equality, which of course she didn’t support then and doesn’t support today.

      2) Nice spin. In 1999–six years after Bill Clinton signed Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell into law–Hillary remarked that DADT had been a failure. In other words, she opposed it not because it was an immoral law that from the start that grossly violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian soldiers, but because it simply hadn’t worked as well as she’d hoped.

      Futhermore, in 2007 she denied that DADT had been a mistake at all, calling it a “transition policy”. Ugh. Has she no principles, no uncompromising commitment to queer equality?

      3) That’s great that Hillary supported domestic partner benefits. If we could marry, though, we wouldn’t need special benefits–but of course Hillary doesn’t believe we queers should be able to marry, so special benefits must be carved out for our civil unions.

      4) Yes, of course Congress passed DOMA, but it never would have become law if Bill Clinton hadn’t then signed it. I used the word “passage” too broadly. It’s a shame that you fixate on my use of a procedural term instead of the vital fact that DADT came into existence–ruining lives and violating rights in the process–because Bill Clinton signed it into law. And Hillary was silent.

      5) Yeah, I love this claim by Hillary that DOMA was somehow part of a greater strategy to PROTECT gay and lesbian rights! If Clinton is elected, God save us from more Pyrrhic victories.

      Apr 21, 2008 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hells kitchen guy
      hells kitchen guy

      With a name like Chelsea Clinton, she was doomed from birth to be a fag hag (“Chelsea Hell’sKitchen” was taken?)

      Apr 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Leland Frances
      Leland Frances

      Well, Brent, if you’re willing to admit that Obama is no better on LGBT rights, then I guess we must applaud you for being one of the few to admit that you’re a “stand alone” pathological Hillary Hater and not someone such as Andrew “Glutes” Sullivan or Chris “I’d Vote for the Devil First” Crain who pretend that their fabricated support for Obama is more about liking him than hating her.

      Again, you demonstrate your ignorance [and this time it's more than stupid verb choice] when you claim that “DOMA … never would have become law if Bill Clinton hadn’t then signed it.” Congressional Veto Override, meet Brent. Brent, meet Congressional Veto Override. Congress was controlled by the Republicans in 1996, led by ruthless homophobes Trent Lott in the Senate where it passed 85-14, and Newt Gingrich in the House where it passed 342-67. THAT’s why DOMA “came into existence.”

      DADT was IN FACT better ON PAPER than the bans on gays in the military that had existed before [surely, even you aren’t one of those who think that out gays were allowed into the military before]. It was not created by President Clinton but was, in fact, the Congressional response to HIS plan to open the military entirely by Executive Order. Though officially controlled by the Democrats, that session of Congress was still not gay-friendly enough to sustain a Presidential veto. It passed in the Senate 63 to 33 and in the House 301 to 134. THAT’s why DADT “came into existence.”

      No viable Presidential candidate past or present supports full marriage equality. Again, it is dishonest to single out Sen. Clinton for such criticism alone.

      Please send us directions to the planet on which you live where such absolutism [“Marching in gay rights parades is pandering if not backed up by a commitment to full rights”] works. Adults on this planet recognize that little is black and white; that even politicians are humans who make mistakes but should be rewarded for evolving not perpetually punished for wrong choices they made years ago.

      PS: Have you heard the sad news about Santa Claus?

      Apr 21, 2008 at 4:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • david gabriel
      david gabriel

      SHE CAN’T DO INTERVIEWS OR DO ANYTHING TO GET M/D TO HAVE DONE ANYTHIN FOR US..SHE LIKES FREE DRINKS AND HAS A N ALCOHOL PROBLEM IS THE TRUTH,LIKE HER BOYFRIEND CHEATS.

      Apr 21, 2008 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brent
      Brent

      You’re right, Leland, that conservatives would likely have overridden the veto, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law, Hillary stood silently by, and to this day she opposes full marriage equality for us.

      Your sarcasm doesn’t substitute for a rational argument, which you need if you’re to successfully excuse Hillary Clinton’s silence on DOMA, her refusal to acknowledge that DADT was a mistake, and her ongoing rejection of full marriage equality.

      This “planet” I’m on is simply insisting that candidates be truly supportive of LGBT fully equality. Clearly you’re a stranger to this place.

      Apr 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • david gabriel
      david gabriel

      thank u brent

      throw a bone to the gays and they think it is meat.
      democrats are superficial and i am one but the republicans are more truthful.
      i want a gay friendly world.no bones.

      Apr 21, 2008 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.