In the wake of General Pace's comments on the immorality of gays and their
sexual activities, the
Democratic candidates have been less then impressive in their responses.
"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."
Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reins, said the New York senator "obviously"
disagrees with Pace and that everyone, including the general, "has the right to
be wrong, but should not inject their personal beliefs into public policy."
Then Wednesday night, the campaign released a statement from the senator
herself, saying, "I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain
An okay answer by the end, but pretty vague. Why not just say gays are not immoral. Is that so hard to say. Being a homosexual is not wrong, bad, or evil. To say so is foolish. Are there that many votes in not saying so?
Why not say, "No comment." and just get it over with. That hard for you to stand up for the gay community? Is it against your ethics? Expect that question in the future.
Newsday caught Obama as he was leaving the firefighters convention and asked him
three times if he thought homosexuality is immoral.
Answer 1: "I
think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."
Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."
Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.
And Obama's spokesman later said the Senator disagrees with Pace as well.
The only reason I'll give Edwards a pass for issuing the same non-g-word statement as Hillary is that his statement was the first thing he said, not the 4th - he never equivocated. Having said that, it would have been nice to see a fuller g-word-embracing statement from Edwards as well. Pace's comment was outrageous, it was offensive, it was demeaning, it was dehumanizing, and it was bigoted - it wasn't simply something you "disagree with" like tax policy or something.)
Edwards took and early stand. But still a weak one.
The Democratic front runners. Not willing to take a stand for a minority. Is it a desire to not critique a general? Is it a religious issue? Is it easier to let the gay community swing then help them?
Maybe...they will learn from this experience.