During a recent interview with Stephen Colbert, liberal pundit and activist Dan Savage discussed gay rights, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Naturally, he’s not exactly the biggest fan of Donald Trump. style=”display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px” data-ad-client=”ca-pub-8278450341216875″ data-ad-slot=”5978848991″> While he did say that Trump isn’t as anti-gay as many other Republicans have been (at least not yet), he’s still scared…
6 thoughts on “Dan Savage on why he trusts Hillary”
One mistake or even two or three is OK, but a series of mistakes, one after another, is unacceptable.
Making every decision based on what the polls say is also unacceptable.
Believing that the decision or decisions you make today will at some point in the future gain political points for you doesn’t cut it either.
On the vote to invade Iraq—I was wrong.
On what the outcome of invading Libya would be—I was wrong.
On LGBT rights–I was wrong.
On same sex marriage–I was wrong.
On throwing the coal miners under the bus–I was wrong.
On NAFTA and the TPP–I was wrong.
And on and on it goes with Hillary.
Savage would have sounded much more credible had he questioned Hillary’s judgement.
Who the hell is this guy above?
A Sanders supporter, no doubt.
God help me, I almost punched one of them at what should have been a nice party.
Yeah, she’s in the pocket of Wall Street, he’s the original Green Mountain boy…pure as the driven snow.
And yet when they were in the Senate together, they voted together, what, 93 per cent of the time?
And by the way, I’ve worked in manufacturing here in Rochester, New York since 1976. It’s been a rough road, I grant you, but I am still employed precisely because my employer has used those trade agreements to its advantage.
Kodak is gone. Zerox is gone.
QVI is still alive!
Couldn’t we please get a little sophistication around here. The Senate puts up bucket loads of meaningless votes. Both of them probably voted with Lieberman 90% of the time. It’s the differential votes that are defining.
On TPP, has Hillary actually come out actually saying she will not sign the TPP and the other odious trade treaties? Better known as giving Big Corporations the right to rule the world?
What I heard, and I have not heard everything, she said that based on what she knows, she would not sign. But, that very well might mean she could learn something which then convinced her that giving up and little (or all) sovereignty would be worth the “great number of new jobs”. Or some such thing.
“… the last thing I want in any politician is for them to lack the ability to evolve on an issue…” The problem with Hillary is that she evolves, then she devolves, then she evolves on issues. She’s already weaseling on her carefully worded, and obviously temporary, opposition to TTP and TTIP.
The oligarchy or plutocracy or deep state or whatever you want to call the shadowy group of sociopaths pulling the strings don’t give a rat’s ass about social issues like gay marriage. Clinton is free to go with the flow and make social issue advocates like Dan Savage happy. But on issues of importance to Wall Street, big banking, and the national security state, she must toe the line. And she has shown repeatedly that she will. Absolutely, repeatedly, and reliably. It’s a prerequisite for the job.
Although, to be fair, she will probably make good on her practice of wagging her finger at them. In public. And, of course, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Upwardly mobile over-achievers like the Clintons and Obama will never, never make, or even permit, and fundamental changes to the system that has so lavishly rewarded them. It would be ungracious, it would provoke cognitive dissonance, and it’s just not in their DNA. And certainly not in their self-interest.
Those who say Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate, but she’s the lesser of too evils are at least logical and consistent with what we know about her history. But saying that Hillary is the great progressive hope for the change we were promised last time are delusional. It’s like asking Lucy to hold the football a little steadier this time.
Release the transcripts.
I hate to sound so wishy-washy but I find myself agreeing with both Ms. Madrak and the counter voices above. Yes, let’s welcome evolution from our politicians within reason, but someone who is consistently wrong in real time deserves to be held accountable for their mistakes. As far as any given politician is concerned, each person has to make up their own mind. For me, much as it displeases me I’ll vote for Clinton in the general, but from her militarism to her Wall Street ties I see way too much that falls on the wrong side for me to ever be happy about voting for her.
A corollary to this is the retired politician who suddenly becomes a progressive warrior. Think Al Gore, who pushed the already triangulating Bill Clinton further to the right as VP then became a born-again Progressive Warrior upon leaving politics. Sure, I welcome him to the team but can’t help but notice he could have done a hell of a lot more good when in the Senate and White House than as a private citizen.
Better late than never and all that but how about discovering those progressive impulses when still in a position to do something about them?
Comments are closed.