It is so disappointing when a candidate cannot answer a basic human rights question without calculation. Clinton's response is not so surprising. I think her nature is to carefully weigh every word that comes out of her mouth or from her pen. If you read her autobiography, you would find that same lack of spontaneity. A quality which led to my original opinion that she is an exceptional politician but not a leader.
I read an article recently about her absolute refusal to apologize for her vote on the war because it wouldn't seem "presidential." Kinda like W's refusal to admit to any errors at all. Kinda like thinking you're beyond reproach because you are a leader. Senator Clinton's position that she was led astray by Bush on the war on Iraq unfortunately reminds me how she was led astray by her husband's denial of infidelity. I expect a president to be a little more intuitive on those types of matters; able to look beyond the superficial; able to dig just a little bit deeper even when it's painful and speak her truth.
And Senator Obama.
Everyone who has ever read MLW knows my position on Senator Obama. It pains me to write how disappointed I am in his caution. When Obama speaks from the heart - he is inspirational and as I've written before, asks us to become our higher selves. He calls on us to be our brother's and our sister's keeper. I guess that doesn't include our gay brothers and sisters.
As expected, once the negative reaction to their comments was noted, they both came out with stronger statements. But did they have to wait for the reaction? Couldn't they just speak from their hearts? Couldn't they stand with their gay brothers and sisters? According to Newsday, this was the reason for the delayed commendation of General Pace's comments:
"Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of
anonymity,said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially
conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share
Pace's views."
What about conservative Democrats, particularly church-going African-Americans who are gay? Guess we don't care about offending them. Any church-going individual ought to think twice about a religion that condemns basic human rights. Too bad they couldn't have responded to these comments in the way of Bono - holding all of us to a higher standard - a rock star, imagine that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENp7c6TtBHk .
If you don't have time to watch it, the best comment was,
"True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. 'Love thy neighbor' is not a piece of advice,it’s a command."
If you don't have time to watch it, the best comment was,
"True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. 'Love thy neighbor' is not a piece of advice,it’s a command."
And no, I'm not gonna fall for that "hate the sin, love the sinner" crap. Cause doesn't the Good Book ask who among us isn't a sinner? It doesn't tell us to hate anything or does it? Equivocating at moments like this is what gives shameless people like a certain blond conservative mouthpiece (whose name will never be mentioned in this blog ever) the chutzpah to use the word faggot when speaking about a presidential candidate and the response is an audience laughs and applauds.
And for the record, the general had every right to his opinion and every right to express them. While I would defend this very right to death, I cannot support comments of hatred against any group of human beings.
You know which candidate who was human enough to answer from the heart? Who was first in deriding the general's inhuman remarks in an immediate and very clear response:
"I don't share that view."
This race is wide open - at least for MLW. And no, it doesn't mean I'm giving up on Obama. I am just holding him to a higher standard. Maybe, Philippe and Dorothy are on the nose for an Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama ticket.
No MLW post is complete without another incredulous event in the W junta. I thought this captured it all.
