Defending Hillary, Promoting Edwards, Thumping Hillary

Jiminy, Hillary Clinton actually made sense, defied far-left orthodoxy and passed on a chance to pander by carefully side-stepping when the Dem debate picked up an aspect of the gay marriage issue:

Allison King of New England Cable News told the Democratic hopefuls about the case last year in Lexington, Mass., where a teacher used a book about a "prince who marries another prince" to teach young children about same-sex marriage.

"Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?"

For non-link clickers - John Edwards responded with a "Yes, absolutely" before his brain engaged and he backed off a bit, noting that maybe second grade was not quite the time (although he expressed no angst about public school being the place).  Let's go to the transcript, where Edwards' expresses a concept of "imposing [one's] view" that may surprise some:

MS. KING:  Thanks, Tim.  The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England.  For example, last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's   teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince.                                                                           

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but most of you  oppose it.  Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?  I'm going to start with Senator Edwards.

MR. EDWARDS:  Yes, absolutely.

What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives.  And I suspect my two younger children -- Emma Claire, who's nine, and Jack, who's seven -- will reach the same conclusion that my daughter, Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage, and she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.                                             
So I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children.  I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in -- did you say second grade?  Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all --

MS. KING:  Well, that's the point is second grade.

MR. EDWARDS:  -- to all of those possibilities because I don't want to impose my view.  Nobody made me God.  I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children, as my wife, Elizabeth, who's spoken her own mind on this issue.  I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

In other words, failure to present the same-sex story amounts to imposing a view and John Edwards does not have the right to make that decision with respect to his own kids at age eight.  Well, then - does failure to allow prayer in school "impose" a view about religion?  Does failure to teach "abstinence-only" impose a view about pre-marital sex?  And if John Edwards won't take responsibility for these decisions, is it OK for a school board to do so?  Or is Edwards' prepared to advocate some sort of Equal Time Act for the public schools?  I doubt it.

Barack Obama endorsed Edwards' waffle.

And Hillary demurred a bit, essentially ducking the question:

SENATOR CLINTON:  Well, I -- I really respect what both John and Barack said.  I think that we've seen differences used for divisive purposes, for political purposes in the last several elections, and I think every one of us on this stage are really personally opposed to that and will do everything we can to prevent it.                         

With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion.  I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation.                                                             

So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.  And I hope that -- tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill, and I'm sure that those of us in the Senate will be there to vote for it.  We haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.  And I think that, you know, that's what the Democratic Party stands for in contrast all too often to the other side.

Bob and weave.  Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.  Duck and cover.  Here is the transcript.

Let's cut to Noam Scheiber for a defense of John Edwards:

In the "spin room" after tonight's debate, Elizabeth Edwards suggested her husband offers Democrats a rare opportunity: the chance to nominate someone who is both the most progressive and the most electable candidate running. (At least among the plausible candidates.) It's an intriguing notion, one that would play well among the notoriously liberal and notoriously strategic-minded Democrats of Iowa. The only question is whether it's actually possible. That is, in moving aggressively to the left of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, does John Edwards invariably undercut the general-election appeal that almost won him the caucuses in 2004?

I think Edwards took a significant step toward answering that question tonight. He came out of the gate taking issue with what he described as Clinton's willingness to leave combat troops in Iraq for the indefinite future. And, in perhaps his best moment of the debate, he warned that Clinton's vote on a Joe Lieberman-sponsored Senate resolution targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard represented a serious lapse in judgment.

But, despite his forcefulness, Edwards came off as controlled and reasonable.

Interesting.  Edwards (Elizabeth, and maybe John too) is a Nutroot fave, and the world needs an Anybody But Hillary candidate, a role Obama seems not to have filled.  Maybe if Edwards hangs around he can be the giant-killer (but where is Al?).

Finally, Hillary's torture flip-flop would be embarrassing if Dems actually discussed it.

Comments

[Sue]

I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children, as my wife, Elizabeth, who's spoken her own mind on this issue. I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

Mother of God and all that is holy. This man is vying for president of the United States? And he doesn't get to impose on his own children what he believes is right? We are doomed folks. Doomed. Doomed. Doomed.

But on a brighter note, he may not get to impose what he believes is right on his own children but by golly and by gum he wants to impose an annual medical checkup on every American.

[MayBee]

And Sue, he wants to impose on the American people that what he won't impose on his children. He is against the "great change" that is gay marriage.

[Sue]

Maybee,

That has to be the dumbest comment he has made to date. It. Just. Has. To. Be.

[hit and run]

I think John is saying, "I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right...Elizabeth does."

Which, if you carry that out to it's implication in the area of foreign policy in this election -- don't believe him when he says he will negotiate with dictators...he has already cut and run and appeased and subjugated himself to one at home. In fear. Well, and love too, of course. But mostly fear.

Oh and it's nice to know that if Jack, his seven year old wants to grow up to be a racist, homo-hating, woman-raping, Bush-loving republican, John would stand back so as not to impose on him what it is he believes is right.

Although, I don't believe him. He wouldn't sit back. Bush-loving republican would cross the line.

[Walter]

...dumbest comment...

You know, I can't get past the remarks he made in his professional career.

I understand the heartbreak of a pregnancy gone awry (well, as much as a 'potential' dad can), but I cannot help but think that I would not have been able to engage the services of an OB specializing in "risky" births were I to live in a jurisdiction where he could describe, with particularity, the thoughts and emotions felt by a baby in its unsuccessful struggle to be born in order to win a jury verdict for his client.

Sure, he was great at it. And I do not hold the positions an advocate takes for his client against that avocat. But when a "pro-choice" lawyer makes that argument, I feel free to fault him for choosing a client whose best interests require him to take positions at odds with closely held beliefs.

And I refuse to entertain suggestions on how to improve our health from someone who has endeavoured (however valiantly) to increase the cost and/or reduce the supply of medical treatment.

[Forbes]

Hillary is against hatred and divisiveness.

Well isn't that special?

Bob and weave? It's more akin to shoveling BS.

[jpe]

This is a critical topic, of course. I'm a little surprised that the PTA presidential debate is getting so much coverage.

[PaulL]

I have no doubt whatsoever that Mrs. Clinton would authorize torture. And often. Heck, can't we all easily imagine her dishing out the torture personally?

Remember, she's a Clinton, so you have to parse her words. She talked about not having a torture "policy." That means, don't commit it to writing where it might be used against you. It doesn't mean that she won't use torture whenever and wherever she deems it appropriate.

[jpe]

Well, how else will Clinton authorize and enable the U.N. to take our private property rights away?

And if you disagree with me and PaulL, watch your back. That was Vince Foster's mistake.

[clarice]

jpe--I wait in vain for some candidate someday to say this are questions for local school boards and not presidential candidates since they deal with matters not within the purview of that office.

[Joe]

Edwards is a total idiot when it comes to normal people. All the Dems pander to are those who want handouts and the queers. I'm so sick of them pushing their perverse views on everyone. They want to be called "gays" like it's some type of cheerful thing or a less offensive name than HOMOS which is just short for HOMOSEXUAL, yet they are offended by that. These are sick people who want to make normal people think it's also "normal" to be a homo. That they want to indoctrinate little children is just an example of their sick mind. I don't want a queer to teach my kids, I don't want a queer to be my preacher, and I don't want to have their weirdo lifestyle rammed down my throat. No nation in the history of the world has ever become great by being a nation of a bunch of fags. All they are doing is dragging our country down into the sewer.

I've known a few straight people who knew a lot of gays, including one man who lived in Key West for 8 years. None of them have anything good to say about them. They all said the same thing, that they just want indiscriminate sex and want to party. They are the scuz of our society after criminals in my opinion.

[clarice]

***thESE are questions******
Edwards is going to take federal funds--he can't raise money, I take it.

[Joe]

I wouldn't vote for any woman to be President of the United States of America. It's a commentary on screwed up this country is that she's even being considered.

That is a man's position, not a women's. I can just hear them now, all the feminist libs, whining through their makeup.

Women didn't found this country men did. Hardened, principaled men, intelligent men. Men who would never be putting up with the horse**** that's going on today. Today we have a country full of sissy men.
Men who would have had their asses kicked left and right by men from our forefather's day.

This country's going to crap because of the nuclear destruction of the family, largely due to liberalism, feminism, and capitualtion to these groups by today's politicians. Many of who are gay, or liberal or feminist, or a combination.

The women who refuse to have children because it might mess up their bodies,....and who don't want to stay home and love and nurture their children.

It's all about who has the biggest house, and the best car and the most toys. We are now overwhelmed with this crap on cable TV showing us "how much" everyone else has. Now we all "need" huge house with granite this and marble that. And of course the woman need to also work to help for the overpriced real estate and toys.

It wasn't this way just 25 years ago. Women used to be home creating a healthy family atmosphere, preparing healthy good food for the family, and the man worked to provide for the family.

Today the women come home with dinner from a fast food joint, or from some box or can. They don't even know how to prepare or cook real food, half of them.

Is it any wonder that juvenile crime is through the roof? Families are the mainstay of successful societies, and marriage is the beginning of a family.

The problem stems from the children who grow up never understanding what a real family is and how important it is. People can be birthed and they will grow physically, but if they never understand the importance of marriage and family and raising children who respect themselves and others, we are done for. The government can never do the job of raising children the way a true family can with a mother and a father.

Libs have you believe a mother and a father in the same household aren't even necessary in a vain attempt to pacify gays, and divorced parents.

Marriage is cheapened by even talking about allowing gays to "marry". Instead of trying to put the family and marriage on a pedestal where it belongs as the bedrock of our society, libs and feminists want to denigrate it and cheapen it.

Once society's fabric starts to unravel it's pretty hard to mend it.

Then on top of all that the government and big business seems intent on turning the United States into 2 countries with 2 national languages. The last couple of generations is really screwing this country up. Maybe it was just inevitable.

[Cecil Turner]

"There she blows!--there she blows! A hump like a snow-hill! It is Moby Dick!"

[Sue]

LOL. Joe knows a few straight people who once knew some 'queers'? Joe himself doesn't know any. Safe to say Joe doesn't leave his house much, no?

Just a clue, Joe. Once you begin your hate speech, most reasonable people tune you out.

[Rick Ballard]

Are Moby's becoming a sadly diminished breed? Or is this just a test to check response levels at JOM with a view towards tuning the babble for the next thirteen months?

There may be a need for a "Mobying for Dummies" manual with a thick "Do's and Dont's in Developing Caricatures from Stereotypes" chapter. The problem is finding a writer willing to work at length with a two syllable limitation.

[kim]

Joe, I don't know who told we have this problem. There is nothing like this in America.
===========================

[MayBee]

I hate to respond because that's obviously what Joe wants. As Rick said, there's often a test involved.

[Sue]

There is nothing like this in America.

::grin::

[Walter]

In defense of Joe, he serves somewhat the same purpose as Moveon.

In that same spirit, I hereby condemn each and every point made by him, together and separately, now and for all time.

I further propose a statement to be adopted by the Cabal as follows:

(b) Sense of JOMC.--It is the sense of the JOMC--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of the women who built this country; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on cheerful things by the liberal conservative activist group Moveon.org Joe.

[Rick Ballard]

Hear, hear.

Second the statement.

[Topsecretk9]

--There may be a need for a "Mobying for Dummies" manual with a thick "Do's and Dont's in Developing Caricatures from Stereotypes" --

Hilarious.

[clarice]

Third the statement.
To save bandwidth, I propose when ever this happens in future we all shout "MOBY!" and just MoveOn.

[Sue]

MOBY!

[Sue]

In all honesty, Clarice, I wanted to ignore the post. The pros and cons of ignoring it were weighed and I decided that to leave it unchallenged would potentially signal agreement with it to those who don't visit here regularly.

[kim]

And I can't help slashing wildly in all directions. Please don't leave me all blubbery.
============================

[Jane]

test

[Jane]

In my response, I speculated that it was a person with a 4 letter name, all in CAPS. I wonder if it was that name that raised the spam alert.

[MayBee]

BUSH?

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

You can probably avoid the filter by using periods, asterisks or other 'signs' between letters.

If that don't answer - try spelling it

V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
L
Y

if it's only four letters, of course.

I'm not sure that I can just Moveon after MOBY spouts. I have a lot of time invested in harpoon lance sharpening. Not to mention the money in flensing blades and rendering vats.

[Walter]

I call the question.

[Jane]

Not to mention how good you are at it. I'm shipping you all my spears.

I think that is weird about the astericks. How did you figure that out? And I wonder if Boris used that same 4 letter word.

[Jane]

Maybee,

D
E
M
O

[PeterUK]

"I have no doubt whatsoever that Mrs. Clinton would authorize torture. And often. Heck, can't we all easily imagine her dishing out the torture personally".

Of course,she married Bill didn't she?

[PeterUK]

I think you are all misunderstanding Mullah Joe.

[Topsecretk9]

another guess the corrupt politican's party story

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--guttenbergmayor-f0928sep28,0,7414924.story

[clarice]

Murtha forced to defend defamation suit by Haditha Marine--must give documents and deposition! Yahoo!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_go_co/murtha_suit

[Rick Ballard]

Murtha article

[Walter]

Unfortunately, in this case, the Marine is going to run smack into CAIR v. Ballenger. Even the Evil JackBooted Thugs at Justice agree. If calling some people the fundraising arm of Hezbollah while talking about your divorce is Official Congressional Business, discussing the conduct of troops in Iraq is also OCB.

More here. It cuts both ways.

[kim]

I'm with the judge. Can the congressman say anything? Surely there are boundaries, beyond which even Congresspeople can't talk.
=================

[clarice]

Walter, that's interesting. I forgot about that case. Still there are limits. There the reporter called and asked the congressman about the breakup and he responded and responding was considered part of his employment. Here. Murtha sought out the publicity--going on all the talk shows .
the case is now available in html at this wonderful new site.
http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/175309
Maybe we can discuss this at greater length.
For example, how does it square with the Proxmire case, where the Senator was held liable for defamatory statements he made in a press conference?

[clarice]

Here's Hutchinson v. Proxmire:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/443/111/

[kim]

I think the judge is on the right track, the motive and rational for Murtha's speaking.
==================================

[Jane]

Clarice,

Gateway Pundit links to you.

[clarice]

Hmmm?

If anyone picks up a copy of the actual opinion in the Murtha case, pls let me know. I'd like to write about it at more length. And if anyone has any notions about the relationship of the Murtha-Proxmire-CAIR cases let's discuss. I feel an article coming on.

[kim]

Denigrating the war effort was legitimate, however wrong, speech; defaming the individual Marine was not necessary for that. He should pay.
====================

[Walter]

Clarice,

As I read Hutchinson v. Proxmire, it stands for the proposition that the "Speech and Debate Clause does not protect lawmakers who are speechifying or debating outside of Congress's walls.

CAIR v. Ballenger, by contrast, addresses the question of whether making statements on the general subject matter falls within the job description of the federal employee being sued. If so, the DOJ may certify so and request that the US be substituted as a defendant. The US has not waived sovereign immunity for defamation torts, so the case must therefore be dismissed. The Westfall Act was enacted in 1988, some ten years after Hutchinson, so it wasn't in play in that case.

I guess if I were looking at this from the Marine's perspective, I'd review the constitutionality of the Westfall act when a remedy exists prior to its invocation but disappears once invoked. Some sort of deprivation of property rights theory?

Keep in mind that the Wilson's would like to use this theory as well. (They'd also have to deal with statutory limitations, of course).

[clarice]

Keep in mind, too, that the Wilson's cannot prove there's anything defamatory about saying one's spouse works at the CIA and suffered no damages..that in addition to the S of L problem.

It certainly is defamatory to be called a cold blooded murderer.

[clarice]

I predict if Westfall is read to allow Congressmen to defame whomever they choose in any fora of their choice, it will be deemed unconstitutional.

[Walter]

Yeah, Clarice, the Wilson's couldn't prove damages--but they really just wanted to get to discovery. The Westfall substitution gets the defendants to summary judgment before discovery commences.

I suspect the judge reads CAIR to require a hearing on the scope of employment and some rationale for the statement.

If Murtha is stupid enough (and he may well be) to say I hate those guys just because I don't like their looks or the unit with which they served, he loses. Unfortunately, the DoJ has some pretty sharp people who will likely put it in the context of commenting on a subject relating to his legislative function of oversight.

...read to allow Congressmen to defame whomever they choose in any fora of their choice...

Eh, what is the credibility of the average Congressperson, let alone Murtha?