Hillary’s NPR interview exposes cracks in her support from mainstream left

posted at 9:31 am on June 13, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Hillary Clinton is not a uniquely different politician today than she was when she ran for president in 2008. It is interesting then that that so many of the personal and professional characteristics which the left regarded as disqualifiers in 2008 are now glossed over or reluctantly accepted as part of an imperfect but largely satisfactory whole package.

Sure, the progressive left has always had its doubts about Clinton. On Thursday, for example, Clinton told a BBC reporter that she does not believe the U.S. should provide military aid and air support to the beleaguered al-Maliki regime in Iraq unless they first embrace political reforms. Does anyone believe, given her track record in office as secretary of state and on countless campaign trails, that Clinton would withhold support for a besieged Baghdad? The left doesn’t.

“Since leaving office, Clinton has gone out of her way to sound more hawkish than Obama on a range of issues,” wrote Bob and Barbara Dreyfuss in The Nation in May. “As she consolidates her position as the expected nominee in 2016, with wide leads over all the likely GOP challengers, it ought to worry progressives that the next president of the United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one.”

The far-left also has their share of concerns about Clinton’s disturbingly capitalist views of American economic policy. In February, MSNBC’s Krystal Ball suggested that, having voluntarily spoken before a Goldman Sachs audience and sat on Wal-Mart’s board of directors, Clinton should opt out of a run for the White House. “Despite all her talents, Clinton is not the woman to address the deep inequality, corporate political capture, and middle class rot afflicting our country,” she said.

Those positions Clinton holds which might square with most Americans but are only slightly out-of-step with the Democratic primary electorate, however, have been largely glossed over since the former secretary of state embarked on her pre-presidential book tour. In spite of this tour going about as smoothly as Van Halen’s last, Clinton has been given the benefit of the doubt from her Democratic supporters. Until now, that is.

On Thursday, the former secretary of state joined NPR host Terry Gross where she was asked about her evolution on the issue of gay marriage – an evolution which took longer than either Vice President Joe Biden or President Barack Obama to complete. She was, as Allahpundit wrote, “verrrrry defensive” when asked to explain her thinking on same-sex marriage rights (listen to the full interview here).

It is not Clinton’s center-left approach to economic issues or her relatively hawkish approach to foreign affairs, but her take on gay marriage that is causing members of the mainstream left to give voice to their lingering doubts about Clinton.

On Friday, MSNBC host and Morning Joe regular Thomas Roberts, himself a gay man who is happily married, questioned Clinton’s legitimacy as a progressive on LGBT issues.

“If Hillary Clinton feels that this is a states’ issue, and that’s what we got out of that interview, I think that’s going to be a big mistake for her going forward,” Roberts said, “because, you don’t put minority rights up to a majority vote.”

“I think, if she wants to be seen as a progressive and out front on this issue, that’s not the phrases she wants to be using,” he concluded.

Ouch.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf illustrates Clinton’s gay marriage problem perfectly:

“If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position,” he wrote. “Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?”

No one doubts that she will be a strong supporter of gay equality if elected president, now that all the political incentives to take that position are aligned. She has advanced gay rights other than marriage at times in her long career. And she has never come across in speeches or interviews like an anti-gay bigot. There is, however, a vocal segment of the left that is invested in likening people who opposed gay marriage to racists who opposed interracial marriage. There is also resentment from gays who feel that the Clintons wronged them in the past.

Friedersdorf quotes Andrew Sullivan who demonstrates that gay marriage advocates have good-faith problems with Clinton’s record on same-sex issues:

She was the second most powerful person in an administration in a critical era for gay rights. And in that era, her husband signed the HIV travel ban into law (it remained on the books for 22 years thereafter), making it the only medical condition ever legislated as a bar to even a tourist entering the US. Clinton also left gay service-members in the lurch, doubling the rate of their discharges from the military, and signed DOMA, the high watermark of anti-gay legislation in American history. Where and when it counted, the Clintons gave critical credibility to the religious right’s jihad against us. And on the day we testified against DOMA in 1996, their Justice Department argued that there were no constitutional problems with DOMA at all (the Supreme Court eventually disagreed).

What I’d like to hear her answer is whether she regrets that period and whether she will ever take responsibility for it. But she got pissed when merely asked how calculated her position on this was. Here’s my guess: Unlike Obama, she was personally deeply uncomfortable with this for a long time and politically believed the issue was a Republican wedge issue to torment the Clintons rather than a core civil rights cause. I was editor of TNR for five years of the Clintons, aggressively writing and publishing articles in favor of marriage equality and military service, and saw the Clintons’ irritation with and hostility to gay activists up close. Under my editorship, we were a very early 1991 backer of Clinton – so I sure didn’t start out prejudiced against them. They taught me that skepticism all by themselves, and mainly by lying all the time.

Friedersdorf nor Sullivan are not liberals, and that is precisely why they can so clearly frame the problem Clinton faces from her left flank on social issues. There is plenty of room for debate on the Democratic side of the aisle on issues relating to economic policy and foreign affairs. That freedom does not extend to social policy. On Abortion, drug policy, criminal justice reform, same sex marriage rights; whatever the majority’s take on those issues happens to be at the moment, it quickly becomes dogma. And dissent is not tolerated.

Clinton’s current position on gay marriage, while right-thinking, was simply not adopted fast enough, and her enthusiasm in support of the cause is very much in doubt. While fringe progressives have been freely critical of Clinton for some time, this issue may provide moderate Democrats with a vehicle for airing their concerns about the likely Democratic standard-bearer.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

it ought to worry progressives that the next president of the United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one.”

My DEAD dog is more hawkish about yard defense than Obama is about national defense. Saying Hillary’s more hawkish than Obama doesn’t say anything of import at all.

xNavigator on June 13, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Except for her being a woman, libs, why would you want her to be your president? She has accomplished nothing of note as a lawyer, State First Lady, FLOTUS, senator or SEC-STATE.

She is in a large way responsible for the deaths of our men in Benghazi and she lies about nearly every personal detail of her life she offers. She is an embarrassment.

hawkdriver on June 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM

H’s new position on homosexual marriage is Left thinking.

vnvet on June 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Friedersdorf nor Sullivan are not liberals

Of course Andrew Sullivan is a liberal. He was editor of The New Republic when it was America’s most prominent liberal magazine. He spent about a decade emphasizing support for gay marriage as being the most important issue in the country. I know Sullivan used to say he was conservative, and some of his past views used to differ from the standard liberal views (support for the war on terror, etc.), but characterizing him as anything other than a liberal now seems misleading to me.

J.S.K. on June 13, 2014 at 9:41 AM

The world is literally blowing up, and THIS is the issue that twists these pinheads in knots?

ncinca on June 13, 2014 at 9:43 AM

It’s amazing the way the fetishistic concerns of a tiny subset of a tiny minority of the population (gay rights extremists) have become the litmus test by which all Democrat politicians have to be measured. Sounds extremist to me.

Athanasius on June 13, 2014 at 9:45 AM

In 2008, Barack Obama opposed gay marriage. When will the left demand he be fired?

Washington Nearsider on June 13, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

In February, MSNBC’s Krystal Ball suggested that,

I’m certain that Killary is putting a lot of stock into what Krystal Ball thinks.

Bishop on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

The world is literally blowing up, and THIS is the issue that twists these pinheads in knots?

ncinca on June 13, 2014 at 9:43 AM

The Democrat party has been taken over by homosexuals and other sexual deviants.

The Democrat party gets hundreds of millions of dollars per year from homosexuals.

sentinelrules on June 13, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Serious question. If not Hillary, who?

There really is no back bench for the Dems. Biden is getting more senile by the day and being kept out of the public view for the most part. Warren the Extreme Socialist will flop in both the Primary and the General, so she has no real chance. Who is left?

Johnnyreb on June 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

YES! The indigenous people’s of North America have been too long underrepresented in the halls of government, it’s time one of their own took the reins.

Warren’s new book: “Dreamcatchers Of My Father”.

Bishop on June 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Old white people.

Ben Hur on June 13, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Sorry, Repubs. Killary gots something all you front runners don’t got.

*rhymes with angina

BigAlSouth on June 13, 2014 at 9:57 AM

…MSNBC’s Krystal Ball suggested that…

First of all, is Ms. Ball a former mystic? Did she read Tarot cards? I can’t believe her parents named her that.

Secondly, the dems don’t care who their candidate is. They only want to win. Here, you’re talking about the far left. True, they have taken over the party but any democrat will vote for whoever has the d behind their name.

Vince on June 13, 2014 at 9:58 AM

I thought the LGBT’s liked exposed cracks.

Flange on June 13, 2014 at 9:58 AM

See? There is only one issue for the left. Gay Marriage. It is the litmus test. No matter that the country may be going to hxll in a handbasket … at least gays can be married, even though they will be jobless and living in an uncertain world that is blowing up everywhere, like the rest of us! Yippee! That’s what really matters ..

djl130 on June 13, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

The owner of IBM stock and a $5 million dollar home, that Warren?

I thought you liberals were against inequality.

sentinelrules on June 13, 2014 at 9:59 AM

In her climb to the top, Hillary stepped on, squashed, vilified, ruined and otherwise angered (not the word I want to use) too many people with very, long memories. This is coming back to haunt her. I can only hope it is enough to prevent the nomination and election.

She forgot the adage of be careful who you step on as you climb to the top, you may need them later.

Tinker on June 13, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Please, please, please nominate her.

dorkintheroad on June 13, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Wow! All the analysis!

I’ll serve the role I do best (a simpleton), and provide the CliffsNote:

Hillary’s a piece of garbage and nobody likes her.

Are we there yet?

Tsar of Earth on June 13, 2014 at 10:01 AM

You’d think they’d care more about whether or not she’s competent to be a national leadeer, but then again they brought us our current Commanderp in Chief.

JeremiahJohnson on June 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Thomas Roberts, himself a gay man who is happily married,

That’s just precious.

“If Hillary Clinton feels that this is a states’ issue, and that’s what we got out of that interview, I think that’s going to be a big mistake for her going forward,” Roberts said, “because, you don’t put minority rights up to a majority vote.”

It’s not about rights; it’s about conduct. It’s about whether the relationship, such as it is, that develops between two people of the same sex rises to the level of marriage–society’s backbone since the beginning of time.

BuckeyeSam on June 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM

“Clinton’s current position on gay marriage, while right-thinking,”

Noah Rothman

And HotAir welcomes it’s newest liberal blogger…

bimmcorp on June 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM

she does not believe the U.S. should provide military aid and air support to the beleaguered al-Maliki regime in Iraq unless they first embrace political reforms.

The analogy would be that Hillary would not stop a rape unless the woman first embraced gay marriage.

faraway on June 13, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Dear Lefties:

Hillary doesn’t care about you or your stupid “causes” at all. She’ll pander to you and use you to get power. Once she gets that, you’re dead to her.

Demonized on June 13, 2014 at 10:04 AM

The far left despises the Clintons. So does a big part of the Democrat leadership. That had a lot to do with how Obama got the nomination.

myiq2xu on June 13, 2014 at 10:05 AM

In 2008, Barack Obama opposed gay marriage. When will the left demand he be fired?

Washington Nearsider on June 13, 2014 at 9:45 AM

And if Joe Biden hadn’t opened his yap, Obama opinion on it would still be “evolving” to this day.

WisRich on June 13, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Why is it that the Left can have Purity tests, and we can’t?

faraway on June 13, 2014 at 10:05 AM

And HotAir welcomes it’s newest liberal blogger…

bimmcorp on June 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM

These NYC “conservatives” are bugging me too.

sentinelrules on June 13, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Friedersdorf nor Sullivan are not liberals

Just a few weeks ago, Friedersdorf was trolling the NRO comments section doing his mightiest to pick fights with conservatives. And isn’t this the same Andrew Sullivan who became so psychotically obsessed with Palin’s kid? But by all means Rothman, continue this narrative. Can’t say I’m surprised.

dorkintheroad on June 13, 2014 at 10:06 AM

YES! The indigenous people’s of North America have been too long underrepresented in the halls of government, it’s time one of their own took the reins.

Warren’s new book: “Dreamcatchers Of My Father”.

LOL!

Deckard BR on June 13, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Why? Why? Why?

bimmcorp on June 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Clinton’s current position on gay marriage, while right-thinking,”

Noah Rothman

Well, well, well. HA hired a troll?

faraway on June 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM

The owner of IBM stock and a $5 million dollar home, that Warren?

I thought you liberals were against inequality.

sentinelrules on June 13, 2014 at 9:59 AM

But she’s one of them in thought. That’s all that matters.

Deckard BR on June 13, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Friedersdorf nor Sullivan are not liberals,

Mr. Rothman: what does that mean?

Same paragraph:

On Abortion, drug policy, criminal justice reform, same sex marriage rights; whatever the majority’s take on those issues happens to be at the moment, it quickly becomes dogma.

Find a primer on semi-colon and hyphen use–quickly.

BuckeyeSam on June 13, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Hillary would have to up her game to be a POS.

307wolverine on June 13, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Yes, Fauxcahontas is a dishonest and pandering woman. One who would make a great liberal college professor. Leader of the Free World, not so much.

NOMOBO on June 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I’m glad Noah Rothman keeps track of MSNBC and knows what all these lefties are saying – so that we don’t have to.

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Yes!!! Bring on Fauxcahontas!

TarheelBen on June 13, 2014 at 10:18 AM

It is not Clinton’s center-left approach to economic issues or her relatively hawkish approach to foreign affairs, but her take on gay marriage that is causing members of the mainstream left to give voice to their lingering doubts about Clinton.

It’s really more that Clinton’s opponents on the left are taking the hot trending issue of the moment and using it to attack her, based on the fact they don’t like/trust her on several other issues where they think she’s going to cave like her husband did after the ’94 midterms, but don’t think those issues will draw buzz from Democratic primary voters who are all about ‘feelings’.

As has been noted, Clinton evolved on gay marriage just nine months after Obama did, and Obama was dragged into backing it when he did because of Biden. That’s a trivial gap, but to the left — who wants to play the “War on Women” card in 2016 with Liz Warren, not Hillary — the gap becomes as big as the time frame between Abe Lincoln and Bull Conner because they don’t think Warren’s populist rhetoric alone is enough to derail Team Clinton.

Bill was branded as a racist by the Obama crew and their media backers during the South Carolina primary in 2008, so it shouldn’t be any shock in 2014 to think that the people who believe they’re moderates and Hillary is closer to Ted Cruz territory than she is to Fauxahontas would have no qualms treating her in the same way they did in 2008, or the same way they treat conservatives all of the time.

jon1979 on June 13, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Clinton’s current position on gay marriage, while right-thinking,”

Noah Rothman

Well, well, well. HA hired a troll?

faraway on June 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM

I keep thinking that, quite possibly, Noah has a wicked and dry sense of humor. I truly hope I’m not mistaken. I’ve been wrong, at least once, before in my life… ;-)

Fallon on June 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM

It doesn’t matter. She’s hillary clinton.

rightside on June 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

I agree.
Zombie Warren Harding would be light years improvement over obama,Shrillary or any Soviet-Dem.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 13, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Still getting used to Rothman’s writing style.

My assumption is that most of his paragraphs one would consider trolling are an instance of mockery by mimicry. “Right-thinking” is not common parlance among anyone to the right of, say, Bernie Sanders.

That said, giving single issue progressive warriors like Friedersdorf or Sullivan (of “Trig Truther” fame) ideological cover, even in the guise of satire or relative to say, psycho feminist Amanda Marcotte, is unwise.

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM

I keep thinking that, quite possibly, Noah has a wicked and dry sense of humor. I truly hope I’m not mistaken. I’ve been wrong, at least once, before in my life… ;-)

Fallon on June 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Coming from ‘Mediaite’, my guess is that Mr. Rothman has a much longer liberal streak than he does a ‘wicked and dry’ sense of humor. ‘Mediaite’ is not noted for it’s right-leaning positions. Was it not the ex-MSNBC stooge and lawyer, Dan Abrahms who founded the site?

bimmcorp on June 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeordie on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Actually libfree, I think you are on to something here.

It appears Hillary is a career doormat; for her husband – with his 20+ bimbo’s and for Obama in 2008. And it appears the same is happening in the lead up to 2016.

She is positioned as “bright, accomplished, etc, etc” – when the fact is she is just a good money raiser and provides convenient cover for the Dems and her husband. Until they don’t really need her anymore.

She “got in front” of her husbands cheating and rape by playing the token dopey wife who actually “stood by her man” (sorry Ms Wynett), all the while it was nothing more than political cover. “Vast right wing conspiracy” was the meme, until her lying husband was impeached for lying and the truth came out.

The lead up to 2008 saw Hillary The First Female President get rolled by Obama The First Black President and his minions – but only after she served her “get a Rep out of the WH” role, and raised a ton of money and Dem political capital that Obama and his ilk ran with. Obama also has turned out to be a lying failure – same as her husband.

So here we are, with all eyeballs on Hillary, taking heat from her own Dem party BEFORE SHE HAS OFFICIALLY ENTERED THE RING; yet “stirring” polls and the MSM to believe she is a cinch to get the Dem nod.

Warren most likely will jump in late 2015 – and once again, Hillary, the token liar, dope and used carcass will have raisied political capital, money and narrative – to once again get embarrassed and lose.

She is the Best American Doormat in the history of politics and marriage.

Odie1941 on June 13, 2014 at 10:37 AM

My assumption is that most of his paragraphs one would consider trolling are an instance of mockery by mimicry.

Doubtful. The best one might say is it’s hipster millennial evasion — “you’ll never be able to tell if I’m kidding or serious” as a kind of ongoing defense mechanism. Probably not, though.

vlad martel on June 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM

I’ve been wrong, at least once, before in my life… ;-)

Fallon on June 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Yes, I understand that. In fact I was wrong once in my life. I once thought I had made a mistake, but I was wrong. ;-) back at ya’

NOMOBO on June 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM

In the immortal words of a great Italian-american philosopher, it’s deja vu all over again.

By Fall, the field will be crowded with new hopefuls.

formwiz on June 13, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Coming from ‘Mediaite’, my guess is that Mr. Rothman has a much longer liberal streak than he does a ‘wicked and dry’ sense of humor. ‘Mediaite’ is not noted for it’s right-leaning positions. Was it not the ex-MSNBC stooge and lawyer, Dan Abrahms who founded the site?

bimmcorp on June 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Yeah, I know. I’m probably fooling myself. Like others, I’ve put him on double-secret probation, but I’m still hoping he’s goofin’ on us.

Fallon on June 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM

My assumption is that most of his paragraphs one would consider trolling are an instance of mockery by mimicry.
BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM

In this case, I think you are right; the paragraph split obscures the connection. The sentence in question should be attributed as a Leftist “comment” rather than being indicative of Noah’s own opinion.

I hope.

The purely grammatical errors could be fixed with a little proof-reading before hitting “submit,” as they seem to be a case of diverted-stream-of-consciousness phraseology.

I hope.

AesopFan on June 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM

NOMOBO on June 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM

:-D

Yeah, make that twice for me. I screwed up my comma placement, lol.

Fallon on June 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Yeah, I know. I’m probably fooling myself. Like others, I’ve put him on double-secret probation, but I’m still hoping he’s goofin’ on us.

Well, mainstream “conservatism” is goofin’ on you — big time.

vlad martel on June 13, 2014 at 10:44 AM

vlad martel on June 13, 2014 at 10:44 AM

I should know better. I have kids Noah’s age. Their liberal college educations have beaten all the humor out of them. Time do hit the park with granddaughter.

Fallon on June 13, 2014 at 10:52 AM

What a joke.

No rational person is going to believe that anyone who is interviewing her isn’t going to go pull the lever for her.

This is an intellectual fart salad; loud, smelly, but with no meat.

itsspideyman on June 13, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Doubtful. The best one might say is it’s hipster millennial evasion — “you’ll never be able to tell if I’m kidding or serious” as a kind of ongoing defense mechanism. Probably not, though.

vlad martel on June 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM

The far left long ago became so extreme that distinguishing between actual quotes of their champions and The Onion type satire has become impossible.

I was unaware Allahpundit was a millennial.

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 10:58 AM

I was unaware Allahpundit was a millennial.

BKennedy on June 13, 2014 at 10:58 AM

He didn’t write it. :D

vlad martel on June 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Wrong analysis as usual.

This book tour/media blitz is a trial run for the 2016 Presidential campaign. Clinton is going to be asked about these various issues then, most likely under more hostile circumstances. Acolytes like Sawyer and Gross are allowing Clinton a safe, friendly forum in which to craft thorough, appropriate, and effective responses.

The problem is, Clinton is blowing it. While her husband is arguably the best retail politician in America, she is the worst. She’s getting testy over softball questions posed by the likes of Diane Sawyer and Terry Gross, who probably have pictures of Hillary hanging over their fireplaces. She stinks.

It is certainly true that Hillary’s own party at best distrust and at worst loathes her. She is always inevitable until she isn’t. The leader of the Democrats, Ted Kennedy, threw her under the bus in 2008 for an unknown, but more pliable and attractive candidate; they are giving her a second chance now because they think she may be their only hope of hanging on to the White House after the disaster of the Obama years. But mark my words, they will dump her the minute someone better pops up. Right now, that is looking very likely.

Joseph K on June 13, 2014 at 11:16 AM

The world is literally blowing up, and THIS is the issue that twists these pinheads in knots?

ncinca on June 13, 2014 at 9:43 AM

True. And, should the animals of the world succeed, these pinheads will be the first lined up to have their throats slit.

Sad, isn’t it? That they don’t realize that.

avagreen on June 13, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Don’t worry. 99.9% of them will still pull the lever for her come November, 2016.

forheremenaremen on June 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I keep thinking that, quite possibly, Noah has a wicked and dry sense of humor. I truly hope I’m not mistaken. I’ve been wrong, at least once, before in my life… ;-)

Fallon on June 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Coming from ‘Mediaite’, my guess is that Mr. Rothman has a much longer liberal streak than he does a ‘wicked and dry’ sense of humor. ‘Mediaite’ is not noted for it’s right-leaning positions. Was it not the ex-MSNBC stooge and lawyer, Dan Abrahms who founded the site?

bimmcorp on June 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM

What if he threw a party and no one came? Or, wrote articles and no one responded?

avagreen on June 13, 2014 at 11:36 AM

I don’t know of a worse candidate for any office, although B.O. is campaigning hard to overcome that label as Prez.

geezerintraining on June 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Warren! Warren! Warren!

libfreeorgan on June 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM

…why are you posting your screams during orgasm… here?

KOOLAID2 on June 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM

, the dems don’t care who their candidate is. They only want to win. Here, you’re talking about the far left. True, they have taken over the party but any democrat will vote for whoever has the d behind their name.

Vince on June 13, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Most people who vote Democrat do it because they just always have or it’s family tradition. They are completely unaware the party has been hijacked by Chicago gangsters and marxist fanatics.

crankyoldlady on June 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Clinton’s current position on gay marriage, while right-thinking, was simply not adopted fast enough, and her enthusiasm in support of the cause is very much in doubt. While fringe progressives have been freely critical of Clinton for some time, this issue may provide moderate Democrats with a vehicle for airing their concerns about the likely Democratic standard-bearer.

Context, folks. Rothman is obviously saying that Clinton is now “right-thinking” from the standpoint of the far left, but that because her timing was bad she’s still getting pummeled. I don’t know whether Noah supports or opposes gay marriage, but there’s no way to tell from a piece of political analysis of the other partisan side.

Athanasius on June 13, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Athanasius on June 13, 2014 at 1:24 PM

I noticed that as well, but I disagree with your take on it. He’s either in favor of gay “marriage” or he needs to learn to write more clearly. He used the modifying phrase without any qualification.
If Noah meant it was the left’s perspective then the sentence should have clearly said that. Something like,

“Although Clinton’s current position of gay marriage concurs with the Left’s thinking…”

I wouldn’t use the phrase right-thinking to describe the Left.

INC on June 13, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Friedersdorf nor Sullivan are not liberals, and that is precisely why they can so clearly frame the problem Clinton faces from her left flank on social issues.

As a small aside note, this sentence is very poorly written. I think that I understand what you mean, but it is as clear as mud.

Theophile on June 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Theophile on June 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Yep. This would be better:

Because F and S are not liberals they can clearly frame the problem…

He still needs to provide some rationale as to why those who are not libs can clearly frame the problem.

On Friday, MSNBC host and Morning Joe regular Thomas Roberts, himself a gay man who is happily married, questioned Clinton’s legitimacy as a progressive on LGBT issues.

This also provides an indication of Noah’s thinking. A “gay man who is happily married” has some unstated presuppositions behind it.

All in all Noah is falling into the liberal thought pattern of assuming some things are true without stating and examining his premises.

To my way of thinking the perpetration of unproved conclusions as true is simply propaganda.

INC on June 13, 2014 at 4:01 PM

To my way of thinking the perpetration of unproved conclusions as true is simply propaganda.

INC on June 13, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Well said!

xNavigator on June 14, 2014 at 12:07 AM