Move-On, The Advocate and The L-Word

By: Flipper
Published On: 9/22/2007 2:22:16 AM

Things seem a bit heavy on this site today, due to the flap over the Move-On ad, so my friends, lets move on...........

Much to my relief, Hillary Clinton, in a recent interview with the Advocate, reaffirmed her heterosexuality and stated for the record that she is not a lesbian.  Sheer tears of joy ran down my face as I read the article.  And what an obnoxious question to ask - but whatever. 

However, IF she were a lesbian, did the columnist from the Advocate really think she would out herself in an interview with him, a bit more than three months from the Iowa caucus? 

And IF she was a lesbian, and IF she wanted to out herself, I would have preferred a lip lock with Brittney Spears on The Ellen Degeneres Show as opposed to a boring interview with the Advocate.

But hey, whatever.....

 


Comments



Want a Conversation? (Galenbrux - 9/23/2007 2:45:21 AM)
Flipper - I suppose that you posted this particular message to invite a response. Sounds like fun.

I've read the Advocate piece. The interviewer, Sean Kennedy, is a Hillary worshiper by his (her?) own admission. So, we have a clue as to the value of the Advocate piece as informing us of Hillary's worth as a potential president. In other words, we should take Kennedy's piece with a grain of salt.

Kennedy asks Hill about her opposition to federal legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. We learn that Hill is opposed for two reasons: the issue belongs to the states, and Hill's "personal reasons", which means Hill was raised that way.

Now, the interesting response from Kennedy: "Could she perhaps be a closet supporter of marriage equality?" Now, isn't that special? Kennedy disbelieves his own ears, just like a lot of Democrats who believe that Hillary is truly anti-Iraq war. Unbelievably, Kennedy goes on to argue with Hillary that she doesn't really mean what she just said.

It is a phenomenon that appears to be unique to Hillary Clinton. Folks don't believe her, or believe only what they want to believe. Or, more precisely, delude themselves when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Heaven help us when our democracy begins electing icons and idols.

I suspect that Hillary's crew go behind her and whisper things into eager ears that Hillary doesn't really believe what she says publicly. "Well, I know she said so-and-so, but I really want to let you know that Hill really, truly believes in contra-so-and-so."

I can think of some vile shit sometimes. For instance, I'd like to make Hillary fall in love with me, and, then, during a heart felt moment in bed, I'd compel her to tell me the truth. Then, I'd betray her by telling the whole world the truth, what she really believes. I'd feel obligated by a higher duty to tell the world the truth about her, before it decides on the next president of the United States.

If you feel I'm a sinister bastard, then you can probably see the same thing in Hillary, who can make people disbelieve their own ears.