Now that the 2014 election is behind us (thank God), we are now faced with two years of campaigning for the 2016 presidential election.
On the Republican side, the upcoming campaign promises to replay the parade of losers, radicals and crazies that we saw in 2012, with the odd bully thrown in for good measure. As long as the GOP keeps self-destructing in national races, the intra-warfare should be fun to watch.
On the Democratic side, the race seems just about over. It’s Hillary Clinton‘s to lose. (Not that she can’t manage that feat, having done so once before, in 2008.) She has the organization, the money and the name, as well as a sense of inevitability. No other candidates are anywhere near as far along. Joe Biden might throw his hat in the ring, which would complicate things, but he would have a hard time against Clinton.
As Obama enters the peak of lame duckness over the next two years, people will be pinning more and more of their hopes to Clinton. Given the Republican field, everything will be riding on her.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The question is whether she’s really up to the task.
There’s no doubt that Clinton is smart and qualified. She’s demonstrated that she cares deeply about LGBT issues and deservedly had strong community support when she ran for Senator and for President.
Yet there are half a dozen reasons to be a little cautious about what to expect from another Clinton campaign and if should she win the White House…
1. She really dragged her feet on marriage equality. If you think President Obama was slow to evolve, Clinton was even worse. She only got around to announcing her support for marriage equality ten months after Obama did, after the party had formally adopted it in its platform and after Republican Senator Rob Portman announced he supported it.
2. She’s defensive about her change in attitude over time. When Clinton was pressed about her evolution on marriage equality, she got pretty testy with the NPR interviewer. This should have been a softball question for her. Yet Clinton was unable to talk honestly and openly about how and when her views on marriage equality, and all the attendant LGBT issues, shifted. She acts as if she’s afraid her response will be used against her, which suggest she’s still struggling with the culture wars of the 1990s.
3. She’s not likely to be a pioneer. By her own admission, Clinton is not going to be pushing the envelope. In the same NPR interview, she noted, “Somebody is always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who join later, in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change, are any less committed.” That response suggests that as new issues bubble up–like transgender rights–Clinton won’t exactly be at the forefront leading the charge.
4. She’s a generation older than Obama. Age doesn’t necessarily mean much, but it’s worth noting that Clinton is actually a generation older than Obama. Her attitudes were formed in a different era, when gay and lesbian issues were career killers. People can change, but those early learnings are hard to unlearn. She also has to prove that she’s in touch with the direction of the community as it is today, and not as it was 20 or 40 years ago.
5. She’s seen what the right wing can do. As First Lady, Clinton was widely mocked for commenting about a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but more than anyone else on the political scene, she knows first hand what the lunatic fringe can do and how it can steer the entire GOP apparatus. You can’t blame anyone who has been through Ken Starr and an impeachment for being risk averse.
6. And then there’s Bill. No one would suggest that Hillary is anything other than her own woman. But she is married to one of the most notorious political triangulators of our time. Bill Clinton had no problem using LGBT issues to our detriment and for his own political gain, even while professing his love for us. During a presidential campaign, Hillary is going to be in the unenviable position of having to respond to Bill’s record. When it comes to LGBT issues, that’s going to make for some very uncomfortable conversations. Already, Hillary is spinning Bill’s legacy in his favor, saying that DOMA actually stopped things from being even worse.
Now, as president Hillary would be far, far, far (like the-distance-from-Earth-to-another-galaxy far) better than any Republican on the horizon. In fact, the GOP’s internal divisions may actual guarantee her the White House.
But let’s go into the 2016 presidential season with our eyes wide open. If we build Clinton up as the greatest liberator since Stonewall, we are bound to be disappointed. She’s a flawed candidate. But that doesn’t mean she won’t be a good President.
Trippy
Lord… please let someone, ANYONE, other than Hillary run for the nomination in 2016. I’d vote for Paula Jones before I’d vote for her.
(Yeah, I know… lots and lots will disagree, but in all honesty, she has done not one single thing of significance that I admire. If she’s our best hope, we’re in bigger trouble than we think.)
Desert Boy
Hillary Clinton is a politician. She will wet her finger and stick in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing. The love and adoration many gay men have for this woman remains a mystery to me.
LandStander
@Trippy: I’m actually with you on this one. Please don’t make us vote for Hillary (I’m looking at YOU Elizabeth Warren…)
Harley
@Trippy: @Desert Boy: And you think Ted Cruz would be better. NOT! I do like the idea of Elizabeth Warren tho. Not enough baggage. But Hillary has the organization so she will probably be our best bet.
bobnla
what one-sided democrat bilge you are delivering. Hillary is a fair-weather politician with no credible track record, a carpet-bagger in her senatorial capture in New York, a lack-luster senator, an embarrassing run for president in 2008, and a dismal tenure as Secretary of State (other than her addiction to photo-ops). Sit this one out, Hillary…
demented
In a word, no. The only reason she’s a front runner is because she was married to a president. Why do you think she’s up to any presidential task?
@Desert Boy: I agree wholeheartedly. There are WORSE options, but that doesn’t make her a good one. Like all politicians, her ultimate loyalty is to herself, and everything she does will be to serve her image and her corporate cronies.
Never trust them. To them, you are barely-cognizent apelike serfs who exist just to cheer them at rallies. Doesn’t matter what party or what stances they take.
Trippy
@LandStander: I doubt Cruz will be the nominee. He’s about as likely to get it as Santorum was. The Republican establishment hates Ted Cruz, and they’ll do whatever they need to do to keep him from winning. Besides, I was talking about the Democrat primaries, not the general election.
There are decent Dems who should/could run, but apparently they are all scared shitless. I guess she has dirty pics of them doing naughty things or something. I like O’Malley and Cuomo. Both have their issues, but at least both of them have actually done something (run a state).
aliengod
I’ll vote for the Republican nominee before Hillary. Hillary Clinton would be nothing more than a continuation of the policies of the Obama administration. I’m not sure if there could be anything worse for this country.
DesertSun
I don’t completely trust her. Her husband PROMISED in 1992 that gays could serve openly in the services, but Bill created Don’t Ask Don’t Tell which essentially allowed the dishonorable discharge of gays in the military to continue. Then her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act (I think around 1996 or so). The Clintons now claim they’re “buddies with the gay community.” She’ll just say whatever’s popular at the moment. Someone like that should not be trusted. Just my $0.02.
hyhybt
Any downside to her connection to Bill’s presidency vanishes if Jeb runs.
OzJosh
As a non-American outsider (who also lived in the US for many years) I’m amazed at the bile directed at Hilary, especially when it comes from gay voters who should know better. It’s almost always sexist, ageist crap, and it says more about those spewing it than it does about HC. The list of objections in this article are also the most pissant quibbles one can imagine, compared with the Republican alternatives – especially if you’re talking about issues like equality. No wonder we often shake out heads and wonder if all Americans really are idiots.
Trippy
@OzJosh: Oh god, where to begin.
First, Hillary Clinton has been on the national political stage since 1992 and in Arkansas for a decade or so before that. She has NEVER been anything but a power-hungry politician wannabe, and she has NEVER taken a stand on an issue that wasn’t first poll-tested 300 times, and only then after every other Democratic politican did all the heavy lifting (see her gay marriage history and her lousy defense of those positions on her NPR interview).
In addition, she is a horrible manager, prone to Nixonian levels of paranoia, and has YET to communicate to Democrat primary voters what she actually stands for and what she believes.
To call anyone who fails to bow down to her inevitability as “sexist” or “ageist” is just laughable. No one here has a problem with her gender or her age. We just don’t trust her because she has done nothing to earn our trust. Nothing.
As for her “advocacy” on gay and women’s issues… please. She stood by and let Bill throw us under the bus without even so much as an apology, and she literally led the campaign to trash the reputation of ANY and EVERY woman who came forward to accuse Bill of bad behavior.
She is a reptile. I will not vote for her. Ever.
robho3
I think we will see another Democratic candidate surface in the next few years. Remember in 2008 they said Hilary was a shoe in and then Obama pops out of nowhere. I hate to say this and I hope I am wrong but I don’t think our next President is going to be a Democrat. And this will set us back years but I think people are so fickle that they blame Obama for not fixing everything that needed to be fix from the mess Bush left him. Everything has become so polarized. And I’m really concerned about the future of the Affordable Healthcare. Time will tell and again I hope I am wrong. Hilary,however is not the one to lead us.
RSun
@OzJosh: I’m with you. I don’t get it either.
MarionPaige
I’m convinced that there was a little conspiracy between the Clintons and Obama. The people who hated the Clintons bent over backwards for Obama, not because they thought Obama could win but rather because they wanted Hilary to lose. And, Obama took the anti-clintons money and rode the anti-clinton sentiment to the White House and what does he do? He appoints Hilary secretary of state – thus giving her a national platform from which to run for President. I know that “a certain gay billionaire” was all over Obama and it is “known” that he hates the Clintons. Once Obama because President and appointed Clinton Secretary of State that gay billionaire never seeemed to have shown up in Washington spotlight with Obama.
Hilary Clinton seemed to have folded so quickly against Obama for President, one must ask does she really want to BE President? I would say, not so much. I bet if Hilary had to pick between President and a shit load of cash she would pick the cash. MEANING, maybe she will again “cash out” on the “anybody but Clinton sentiment” to help get another person who can do her favors elected President. Just wonder, what handsome young up and coming Democrat would Hilary be eager to help get elected President? Maybe,
That handsome young stud Michael Bloomberg will switch back to Democrat and hire hilary as a consultant?
BJ McFrisky
Beware, liberals, because she’s out to fool you, just like Obama did (and boy did he pull the wool over YOUR eyes).
@Trippy: You might not like it, but I agree with you completely.
@Desert Boy: You might not like it, but I agree with you completely.
@bobnla: You might not like it, but I agree with you completely.
@demented: You might not like it, but I agree with you completely.
@aliengod: You might not like it, but I agree with you completely.
@DesertSun: You might not like it, but I agree with you completely.
MarionPaige
Since the White Queens are gonna do their best to get a Republican Elected President in 2016 – let’s hope that Michael Bloomberg does run for President – as a Repubican
gaymer69
No republican candidate would be better than Hillary. God forbid we wind up with Ted Cruz or Rick Perry. I live in Texas, and I have to put up with the shit these guys spew all the time. Sure, she “didn’t have our backs” in 1996 (when she was just the first lady), but that was 18 years ago. Even if she is a fair-weather politician, she’s obviously on our side now, so what’s the point in holding on to a grudge? No one will advocate for marriage equality or women’s rights on the other side. If her name winds up on the ticket, there is only one clear choice (especially if you’re gay).
Trippy
@gaymer69: Well, I would agree that “no republican” candidate on the current crop of probables would make a great president (on LGBT issues), but that doesn’t mean that I’m buying into the idea that I therefore have to suck it up and push the Hillary button in 2016. I sat home in 2004 because I thought that Kerry was a vapid idiot, and I certainly wasn’t going to vote for Bush (full disclosure: I still think that Kerry is a vapid idiot). I can also go to polls and vote for the Libertarian candidate or I can just skip that race completely… abstaining in that category while voting in the others. There are lots of options, actually. Regardless of which one I choose, I can promise you that it won’t be the one you think I should choose.
IN THE MEANTIME, I also don’t accept that Hillary is inevitable or that the Republicans are necessarily going to nominate some rabid homophobe. I’d like to believe that other more ethical politicians will challenge Hillary (and beat her) and that the Republicans will give serious thought to guy like Rob Portman (who is not a homophobe).
At 52, I don’t do the whole “hold my nose and vote” thing anymore. It only perpetuates the problem.
Saint Law
@BJ McFrisky: You might not like it, but you’re a complete moron.
Saint Law
The Democrats are awful, however anyone looking to the Republicans for solutions is either a) a very wealthy sociopath or b) a suicidal slave.
smittoons
Jesus, these boards read like a NY Post community bitchfest.
Hillary Clinton is a crafty, thoroughbred politician. That means she’s devious, she lies, she schemes, she obfuscates, she never replies to a yes or no question in less than a paragraph, she arrogantly makes questionable compromises in order to achieve power. She’s also exactly the kind of person I want on our side right now. We need a tough fighter who has been in the dirt and won’t underestimate the Republicans.
This country cannot afford to see the legislative and executive branches controlled by the GOP. There can be no misty-eyed mellowing or whitewashing of the George W Bush legacy and what happened to this country the moment we were denied an Al Gore presidency. Gay rights were not advanced, women’s rights were not advanced, the economy was mismanaged then outright tanked, we invaded Iraq without just cause, the Supreme Court’s conservative wing was propped up twice, our children’s education was put to a flawed standard of standardized tests, no progress was made to fight global warming.
President Obama was the wrong president for the wrong time. We needed an experienced veteran who could fight the GOP and never be outmaneuvered, who would work with the enemy tirelessly instead of offer an olive branch and write them off after it was rejected out of hand once. Hillary is not flashy, she is not scandal-free, she is neither a poetic scholarly orator or a typical blue-collar folksy woman everyone would want to have a beer with. What she is is a strong diplomat, an experienced and thick-skinned policy-maker who would need little on the job training, a tireless opponent, a true advocate for women’s rights, a respected figure around the world and the most-likely candidate we have to push the Supreme Court to the balance that’s best for our country. She needs to have a good opponent in the primaries to flesh out her positions and become someone we can all get behind honestly, but if voters don’t play the game at all to spite themselves, then they have no right to complain ever again.
Will L
The article pretty much hits the nail on the head. I would have voted for Hillary in the past, but Obama will be hard to follow. She’s not the type to stand her ground for what she believes in. She’ll “play the game” to get along and not accomplish a thing. I hope the Democrats can come up with someone else. Right now she’s the best they have but she won’t win against the rednecks.
E T
I’m still a Clinton fan. She’s a moderate liberal with a longstanding career in law and politics. She’d be an everywoman president (neither princess nor submissive), and our culture desperately needs that. I don’t want to live in a Disney film of infinite possibilities and I certainly don’t want to live in a Bible re-enactment society. Pragmatic feminist third way? Yes. LGBT rights don’t stand a chance if we can’t even treat half our population with respect.
Alan down in Florida
It will never happen but the Democratic candidate should be Sen. Bernard Sanders. His gift for making issues so clear even a 3 year old can understand makes it hard for Republicans to obfuscate. As local elections proved this year – people approve of many major Democratic policies. Sen. Sanders is the man to make the case for the Democrats. But it will never happen.
Desert Boy
@Harley: Engage brain. You’re locked into a false premise. There are other Democrats than Hillary and as far as your fear of Ted Cruz, he will never be the GOP nominee, let alone president.
tjr101
People who say they will stay home and not vote come 2016 if Hillary is the Dem nominee are idiots. Do you really think it will be better if the Republicans control both Congress and the WH. The Republican party has gone even further to the right during the Obama years. The shitstorm they will legislate and create is frightening. How about the right-wing nut case they will nominate to the Supreme court when Ginsburg steps down or dies. This stay home or vote Ralph Nader like green or libertarian crap does nothing and only gives us the worst case scenario.
And of course the likes of Bernie Sanders will never be the Democrat nominee, he’s unelectable and as exciting as watching paint dry.
stanhope
OK when you sober up perhaps you will realize this. Obama grossly miscalculated the irrational fervor of the republicans. He also was stupid/egocentric enough to really believe that HE was the one who was going to deliver consensus. In doing so he squandered his 2 house majority. To this day that the idea of a Black president rubs some people the wrong way down to the corpuscle completely escapes him. Hell in at least 7 states, he is still a Negro or worse. I thought he’d get the message when for the first time in modern history a sitting president was heckled during a state of the union speech. He stood there like a lost school boy. He wasn’t the one then and he isn’t the one now. Moving along. The republicans and their like smell blood in the water after the mid-terms which the Democrats gave away on a silver platter. They will be well funded [an understatement], well organized with some good district maps and some voter qualification laws that favor them. Sure, I’d like Elizabeth Warren to win but that ain’t gonna happen Suzy. I like Joe Biden too but imagine the commercials they’ll run against him. We can’t circle the wagons around him like the republicans did around that imbecile George Bush. Hillary knows how the republicans play the game and Bill is a virtuoso. I am as sick as anyone else of “the lesser of 2 evils” but Hillary is a choice I can make easily. The alternative is just too horrible to imagine. Canada just gets too cold in winter.
Chris
We’re barely past the 2014 elections where a slate of anti-gay folk were voted into office across the U.S. And instead of thinking how to protect and possibly sustain our gains, people are looking forward to 2016. Give the electioneering a rest; there’s important work to be done and a very small window in which to do it.
jckfmsincty
Elizabeth Warren in 2016
Harley
@Desert Boy: One thing for sure, I will NEVER vote for the KKK/Tea Party establishment. They want to stack the Supreme Court with Scalia/Thomas clones and that will be the very WORST for America.
jason smeds
Hillary Clinton did nothing for gay rights. Her husband did nothing too. In fact, her husband made life worse for gays with his ridiculous Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
The other thing about Hillary is that she’s a woman. Women are naturally hostile towards gay men because, after all, we’re men. Men threaten girl power.
Mr C
Sone of y’all queens are DELIRIOUS especially Stanhope and BJ McFrisky! Please understand LIBERALS there’s not enough of us to be this this defiant! Gotta take the good with the bad and I’ll be damned if I let Christie or any of them win. Then again with these comments could be a bunch a Shady right wing queens!
1EqualityUSA
Always ask yourselves who would the Republicans pick for the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment.
Virge
Anyone who really believes the future of Equality depends on Hillary Clinton is one of the “Stupid American Voters” ACA Architect Jonathan Gruber has been talking about it being necessary to fool in order to pass progressive legislation.
As President Hillary will do her best to make Obama look like a very honest man.
BJ McFrisky
@Saint Law: Is your mommy aware that you’re perusing adult websites?
Desert Boy
@Harley: The closet Ted ‘Joe McCarthy’ Cruz will ever get to the White House is as a tourist. He will never be president.
BJ McFrisky
@Desert Boy: Agreed. People who vote on laws (senators, congressmen) should never be put in a position of leadership, party affiliation be damned. They’re simply not qualified.
@stanhope: Perhaps you should consider Russia like liberal icon Edward Snowden did. Sure, it’s cold, but it’s about as anti-American as America-haters like you can get. Tell you what, I’ll cover the airfare.
SteveDenver
So it seems HILARY BASHING is the new cool thing. What a shame.
1EqualityUSA
SteveDenver, I hear you. They haven’t even given her a chance to show her stuff, debate numb-nutjobs, or present her views. If I had to be on an Island with her or Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, or the other mealy-mouthed Rand character, I’d rather spend my time with someone who can think critically. Besides, she’s likely a little meaner than Obama, so she’ll fare better with these recalcitrant politicians. Who would Republicans pick to fill a Supreme Court Justice?
franiel32
Hillary might have done little for Gay Rights in the US. But she did LOT’S for Gay rights on the International stage. As Secretary of State she fought for Gay rights everywhere. In Russia, Africa, Central America and the Caribbean, and the UN. Anyone who watched her tenure as Secretary of State has to be aware of this.
sesfm
Oh god, the standards are just so low for politicians in some respects. I’m a gay male. So I’m supposed to vote for her because she’s *comparatively* pro-gay, even though she’s been outwardly anti-male? And I’m supposed to be impressed by someone who got to where she was not on her own merits but on the fact that she married someone who was president before? Pleeeeease.
Remember guys, third parties DO exist. I encourage you to not just vote of the lesser of two evils. (Instead, choose the least of many evils, lol.) Seriously though, someone has to EARN your vote, not just *not be the worst*.
sesfm
Oh god, the standards are just so low for politicians in some respects. I’m a gay male. So I’m supposed to vote for her because she’s *comparatively* pro-gay, even though she’s been outwardly anti-male? And I’m supposed to be impressed by someone who got to where she was not on her own merits but on the fact that she married someone who was president before? Pleeeeease. And no, despite what every supporter of every female candidate for anything seems to think, the fact that a candidate could be “the first female” somethingorother IS NOT A QUALIFICATION IN AND OF ITSELF.
Remember guys, third parties DO exist. I encourage you to not just vote for the lesser of two evils. (Instead, choose the least of many evils, lol.) Seriously though, someone has to EARN your vote, not just *not be the worst*.
sesfm
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” -Hilary
Is that really someone you want to be in charge of defense foreign policy? Someone to whom the sadness of a female is a bigger tragedy than the death of a male?
hyhybt
@sesfm: I can see that going either way. When your loved ones and those you depend on die, you have to deal with the results, including but by no means limited to grief. When you die, well, you don’t.
(As for edits, though the atmosphere here’s been a bit less nasty lately, it would too easily be abused. Why not just ignore the typo if it’s minor enough, or, if it needs correcting, make a new post correcting only the error instead of repeating the whole thing?)
sesfm
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” -Hillary Clinton
Is that really someone you want to be in charge of defense and foreign policy? Someone to whom the sadness of a female is a bigger tragedy than the death of a male?
(Multiple posts thanks to typos. Would really be nice to have an edit comment feature on here.)