In early summer of 2008, shortly after suspending her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton established from among the ranks of her campaign, “Hillary sent me.”
It was an effort to swing her voters over to Obama, and it might have been successful but for the fact that Obama seemed to think Hillary alone would be enough to garner the votes from her sector. As it turned out, it always appeared to Hillary’s sector that the effort was hers alone, and nothing Obama did or said indicated that he really cared at all about those of us who were (and remain) in her corner.
The Strategy of Surrogacy has been one of Obama’s hallmarks going way back before the 2008 convention and has remained his major approach to tasks for which he has little interest or taste. I, for one, who have spoken from this platform on this topic many times (most recently this; Memo to LGBT Community: Hillary On Your Side – Long Before Yesterday) , did not require this article from last night to explain the strategy to me, but some may have yet to receive the message.
On gay rights, Obama lets surrogates take the lead
By Mark Landler / New York Times News Service
Published: December 31. 2011 4:00AM PST
Obama’s strategy, administration officials and gay-rights advocates said, reflects two conflicting forces. He recognizes that support for gay rights and same-sex marriage is growing, particularly among young voters.
But he is reluctant in an election year to be drawn into a culture-war issue — one that reliably helps Republicans turn out evangelical voters in their favor.
It seems that with Obama it is never about the true quality of life questions embedded in issues and communities, but rather about how he can get enough votes to sustain his presidency. If the LGBT community did not get the message when he appeared in NYC the weekend gay marriage was legalized (to a shout-out he responded, “I hear ya!”), I hope they wake up soon. He hears ya. He just is not going to take the chance of standing up for you. That he will leave to his surrogates, this issue, primarily to HRC.
But lest other interest groups think the knight in shining armor will slay any dragons in their defense, please see Taylor Marsh today on that topic.
The Party’s Over
By Taylor Marsh on 01 January 2012The latest political move against women of all ages came recently when Pres. Obama decided to put politics over science on Plan B, even though it was conclusively proven safe for women, regardless of age. He said he was squeamish about it as a father. What made it worse is that he hid behind Kathleen Sebelius’s skirt, also saying he had nothing to do with the decision.
This kind of cowardice in a grown man is unattractive; in a president it is unacceptable.
There was a character in our folklore who leaned on a surrogate. You may remember this.
Then they sat down and talked of the birds and the beautiful
Spring-time,
Talked of their friends at home, and the Mayflower that sailed
on the morrow.
“I have been thinking all day,” said gently the Puritan maiden,
“Dreaming all night, and thinking all day, of the hedge-rows of
England,–
They are in blossom now, and the country is all like a garden;
Thinking of lanes and fields, and the song of the lark and the
linnet,
Seeing the village street, and familiar faces of neighbors
Going about as of old, and stopping to gossip together,
And, at the end of the street, the village church, with the ivy
Climbing the old gray tower, and the quiet graves in the
churchyard.
Kind are the people I live with, and dear to me my religion;
Still my heart is so sad, that I wish myself back in Old England.
You will say it is wrong, but I cannot help it: I almost
Wish myself back in Old England, I feel so lonely and wretched.”
Thereupon answered the youth:–“Indeed I do not condemn you;
Stouter hearts than a woman’s have quailed in this terrible
winter.
Yours is tender and trusting, and needs a stronger to lean on;
So I have come to you now, with an offer and proffer of marriage
Made by a good man and true, Miles Standish the Captain of
Plymouth!”
Thus he delivered his message, the dexterous writer of
letters,–
Did not embellish the theme, nor array it in beautiful phrases,
But came straight to the point, and blurted it out like a
schoolboy;
Even the Captain himself could hardly have said it more bluntly.
Mute with amazement and sorrow, Priscilla the Puritan maiden
Looked into Alden’s face, her eyes dilated with wonder,
Feeling his words like a blow, that stunned her and rendered her
speechless;
Till at length she exclaimed, interrupting the ominous silence:
“If the great Captain of Plymouth is so very eager to wed me,
Why does he not come himself, and take the trouble to woo me?
If I am not worth the wooing, I surely am not worth the winning!”
Then John Alden began explaining and smoothing the matter,
Making it worse as he went, by saying the Captain was busy,–
Had no time for such things;–such things! the words grating
harshly
Fell on the ear of Priscilla; and swift as a flash she made
answer:
“Has he no time for such things, as you call it, before he is
married,
Would he be likely to find it, or make it, after the wedding?
That is the way with you men; you don’t understand us, you
cannot.
When you have made up your minds, after thinking of this one and
that one,
Choosing, selecting, rejecting, comparing one with another,
Then you make known your desire, with abrupt and sudden avowal,
And are offended and hurt, and indignant perhaps, that a woman
Does not respond at once to a love that she never suspected,
Does not attain at a bound the height to which you have been
climbing.
This is not right nor just: for surely a woman’s affection
Is not a thing to be asked for, and had for only the asking.
When one is truly in love, one not only says it, but shows it.
Had he but waited awhile, had he only showed that he loved me,
Even this Captain of yours–who knows?–at last might have won
me,
Old and rough as he is; but now it never can happen.”
Still John Alden went on, unheeding the words of Priscilla,
Urging the suit of his friend, explaining, persuading, expanding;
Spoke of his courage and skill, and of all his battles in
Flanders,
How with the people of God he had chosen to suffer affliction,
How, in return for his zeal, they had made him Captain of
Plymouth;
He was a gentleman born, could trace his pedigree plainly
Back to Hugh Standish of Duxbury Hall, in Lancashire, England,
Who was the son of Ralph, and the grandson of Thurston de
Standish;
Heir unto vast estates, of which he was basely defrauded,
Still bore the family arms, and had for his crest a cock argent
Combed and wattled gules, and all the rest of the blazon.
He was a man of honor, of noble and generous nature;
Though he was rough, he was kindly; she knew how during the
winter
He had attended the sick, with a hand as gentle as woman’s;
Somewhat hasty and hot, he could not deny it, and headstrong,
Stern as a soldier might be, but hearty, and placable always,
Not to be laughed at and scorned, because he was little of
stature;
For he was great of heart, magnanimous, courtly, courageous;
Any woman in Plymouth, nay, any woman in England,
Might be happy and proud to be called the wife of Miles Standish!
But as he warmed and glowed, in his simple and eloquent
language,
Quite forgetful of self, and full of the praise of his rival,
Archly the maiden smiled, and, with eyes overrunning with
laughter,
Said, in a tremulous voice, “Why don’t you speak for yourself,
John?”-From Longfellow’s The Courtship of Miles Standish
Pretty as she is, Hillary is not Priscilla Mullins in this analogy. We are, those of us whose vote Obama expects to snare by sending our Hillary to us with messages that her history shows reflect not his positions but her own. We are wise to the strategy and tired of the requisite “President Obama and I” in speeches that clearly come from her heart alone. She is, of course, John Alden, carrying the message for Miles Standish … who couldn’t be bothered or fears the message will alienate some other voting bloc.
I find it offensive linking to Taylor Marsh and her obscene photo of a clayed over Hillary Clinton as the book cover designed to let her profit offer of Hillary Clinton after betraying Hillary Clinton voters in 2008 and insulting PUMA’s as well.
Ok, I linked to her book page on Dailypuma about Marsh bragging about her Hillary book but only because Marsh is so full of narcissistic crap. Look at her picture, than look at Hillary’s, then read how she was a former beauty queen.
Marsh, yuck. Another well know female either trying to keep Hillary Clinton down or profit at Hillary Clinton’s expense. Lets not forget, Oprah, Pelosi, Shriver, Brazille, and Huffington.
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2008/07/nobody-takes-puma-seriously-but-puma/
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2010/04/cnn-exhumes-puma-for-tea-party-story/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/puma-crowd-courts-ridicul_b_117063.html
LikeLike
I have long defended Hillary against passive-aggressive articles by both Marsh and Tina Brown who always seem to have a double-edged message where HRC is concerned not to mention publications to sell using her as a subject. I linked to the article because of the many important points she makes that I suppose I could have enumerated myself and remained just this side of plagiarism – maybe – but I felt it was legally safer simply to link to her article.
Obviously you have also linked to her at some point for a good reason.
NO one is more aware than I of Marsh’s agenda (or Brown’s for that matter), but this is the messy business of democracy, and I felt her message was important for those NOT of the LGBT community who are under illusions that Obama will one day take up a sword and fight for someone and something other than his own reelection.
LikeLike
s4h i was so angry w/taylor marsh and all the other women who turned on hillary – what kind of sisters are they? meanwhile they continue t use her for heir agendas! horrible!
LikeLike
their agendas – sorry for typos
LikeLike
I’ll say it again – the archives here are FULL of diatribes against her and Tina Brown for those shenanigans. The issue here is people – especially women – whose votes Obama is trying to get. She makes important points and they need to know that he is not their candidate.
LikeLike
I think that not narrowing articles (or comments) to those of diehard-to-the-core Hillary supporters broadens the appeal of this site and, as a result, gets its message out more effectively. I suppose it might be irksome to come across the words of those who aren’t 100% behind Secretary Clinton 100% of the time, but it makes this blog far better than a fan site acting as and echo chamber for her biggest fans. That makes this site special and I comment you for that, Still.
LikeLike
Commend not comment. Sorry.
LikeLike
Thank you, discourse, and I am thinking that as we begin a new year with the political season entering a new phase it might be a good idea for all of us to wipe that slate clean and take people for where they stand and what they are saying today rather than judging them on their past positions.
Everything evolves, and people’s opinions change. I know you have your own opinions and agenda. Here, I am supporting any effort to wage a write-in campaign for HRC. To do that we need every single voice, vote, boot on the ground, video maker, blogger, tweeter – everyone.
It does us no good to cut off our nose to spite our face. We know the history. We all lived it. Now, if folks have buyer’s remorse, we need to accept them. Taylor Marsh has a big voice. Why not link to her remarks – which are helpful? Because of what she has done in the past?
Every year Tina Brown puts up some passive-aggressive article about HRC, and every March HRC speaks at Tina’s Women in the World event anyway. Not much is gained by being more Catholic than the Pope.
LikeLike
You’re right. Everything is in flux at this point. A more open-minded approach seems more likely to get you results. Speaking of results, I thought I read somewhere that there is a uncommitted catagory on the ballot in the Iowa Democratic caucus (Yes, they’re still holding one.) If that earns enough votes to make news, that could be of interest.
You’re also right about me, though mine is less of an agenda and more of a career-related situation. It’s complicated, and may get even murkier, so I thank you for your understanding.
LikeLike
I did read that there would be uncommitted votes in Iowa.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165247/iowa-challenge-obama-dem-caucus-votes-uncommitted-slate
LikeLike
Yes, there is a movement to vote Uncommitted in Iowa. I first heard of it last week and today it was was all over Twitter. The people leading this movement are far left Occupy types, not PUMAs. So I don’t know much about them nor am I aware of whether they would support a Hillary 2012 candidacy. I also don’t know how well organized they are. We’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
Correct, and these uncommitted votes could go somewhere in Charlotte.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/01/progressives-plan-to-challenge-obama-in-iowa/#.TwDvbdvqn9Y.twitter
We love you here and want to see your career advance. We all do what we must.
Again, thank you for your continued great support!
LikeLike
If there is a significant push for another Democratic option, let’s be honest, there are very few people out there who can mobilize that quickly. Your girl is the most viable of those potential candidates. Independant voters and more centrist Republicans might also be more apt to choose her over a hardline conservative, an inconsistant Romney, or the combination wingnut/ideaist/fan of raw milk that is Ron Paul. The “Occupy”ers got the ball rolling, but their are many people who are not happy with the way things are shaping up. Plenty of candidates have won with a plurality vote.
LikeLike
While we’re being as inclusive as possible and not burning any bridges, I don’t get why you think it’s helpful to disparage raw milk when it’s the candidate you don’t like. Is raw milk a wedge issue now?
— just another raw milk drinking, diehard Hillary supporter (from the beginning)
P.S. Great job here, S4H!
LikeLike
He’s mentioned it often so it’s just something I associate with him now. Sort of like disliking broccoli was associated with the elder Bush or peanut with Carter. It’s not a bad thing, just an association. Idealism isn’t a bad thing either for that matter.
LikeLike
It’s funny how many thing he thinks the government should not get to decide, except a woman’s right to choose. Apparently for that, the government knows better than the citizen.
LikeLike
I’ve never figured out how that fits with his commitment to near government-free, libertarian philosophy. I’ve only been able to come up with two arguments for this incongruity.
1. Women are not intellectually capable of making complex decisions that adults make,
or 2. Women of child bearing age are not so much people as they are walking incubators. Full personhood for women is achieved at menopause.
Both of these theories call into question his thoughts on women’s abilities in general.
LikeLike
Evidently in NH raw milk is a wedge issue. All politics are local. 🙂
LikeLike
That’s probably why he’s brought it up all those times. It seemed really out of the blue from here.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t know WHY it’s an issue, but the dairy farmers up there apparently want to sell raw milk. I grew up in a dairy farm town and nobody ever had a problem with pasteurization.
LikeLike
I get why it’s an issue but I don’t get is how it’s a wedge issue in partisan politics. Raw milk proponents span the entire spectrum of political thought–from fundigelicals to radical hippies and everyone in between. I know some people in Maine who are part of the food sovereignty movement who are pushing hard for RP. Happily, I live in CT where raw milk is legal–retail even!
LikeLike
By the way, it’s an issue because it’s illegal to some degree or another in most states. Here’s a map with the state-by-state laws. I think people should be allowed to buy and consume raw milk if they want to and be able to buy it at a nearby store. (I also think people should be allowed to by pasteurized milk if that’s what they want.) I don’t think the government should raid dairies at gun point and confiscate a farmers food and products for selling raw milk.
LikeLike
It is a wedgeissue, butnota left/right one. It’s a populist/libertarianone. It has todo wit how much the government hould orshould notprotect itscitizens fromallsorts oftings, in this casepathogens in unpasturizedmilk.
LikeLike
Okay,Iguessmymobiledevicehatesscapesnow.
LikeLike
No “space” key?
LikeLike
There is a “space” key, but WordPress occasionally plays havoc with my NookColor. No worries, though. Santa got me a new iMac that I ‘m setting up tonight. I will be back to full computing power soon.
LikeLike
I agree. If someone makes a good point, they make a good point. I commend you too Still4hill.
LikeLike
Thank you, littleisis! I sincerely appreciate the support.
LikeLike
While arguing Hillary Clinton is better on LGBT rights than is Barack Obama, lets be clear.
Yes, as NY Senator, Hillary dutifully marched up Fifth Avenue each June in the annual Pride Parade (how could she not?), this is window dressing and really doesn’t amount to much.
A real insight came during the Human Rights Campaign 2008 sit-down with HRC president Joe Solmonese. He asked both Obama and Hillary where they stood on same-sex marriage and the repeal of DOMA. Obama said he is opposed to marriage equality based on his religious beliefs but, he supported the repeal of DOMA in its entirety.
Hillary was opposed to repealing DOMA — a bill her husband signed into law in order to quiet Republicans: However, Hillary told Solmonese she supported repeal of section 3 of viciously homophobic DOMA which deals with Federal benefits for same-sex couples.
I think it is a mischaracterization to say Hillary Clinton is a champion of gay rights and Obama isn’t. Hillary is said to have been pushed from center-right on LGBT rights by her daughter, Chelsea, who happens to support marriage equality. Hillary has evolved over time. Just like Bill Clinton, who has said on the record that he regrets signing both DADT and DOMA.
No one knows what Hillary would do or not do vis a vis LGBT rights if she was sitting in the Oval Office. Would her newly found support for gay rights be something she would uphold? Or, would she throw my community under the bus? I want to think she would be a stalwart supporter but, until that moment arrives, we don’t know.
LikeLike
Yes, no one can read the Secretary’s mind, but looking at this from a purely strategic perspective I don’t see how backtracking on LGBT rights would do anything positive for any candidate trying to get anywhere with those of us to the left of center on social issues. It’s bad political calculus and if even I can see that, I’m sure she and everyone connected with her politically can too.
LikeLike