Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Rumors and Hillary Clinton

Tip o’ the bloggy hat to FranIAm for bringing up this From the Left post about Hillary Clinton and the rumor that she is lesbian. Reading Christopher's original post, I couldn’t help but think that there was something not quite right going on. Let me try to explain:

First, I have never thought Hillary Clinton was lesbian; I just don’t get that feel from her. Much as I’d love to have her on my team, I just don’t think the lady’s got it in her to explore whatever -um- urges she might (or might not) have had. The woman is powerful and has women in key positions around her; to me, this bespeaks her feminism, not lesbianism.

I agree with Christopher that Clinton’s strong poll ratings so far have kept Gore from entering the race. I’d be willing to bet that Gore has considered it, but he knows that Bill and Hillary would likely smash him into bits if he seriously hinted at getting into the race. Right now, Clinton seems unstoppable, but Gore would be a massive distraction. God knows dems don’t need that to happen again. (Nader, party of green?) Gore knows this better than anyone, so he takes the convenient out: he’s more powerful now as a regular citizen than he could be as a politician, and thus why would he get back into politics and take the media’s abuse again? Best to take his Nobel Prize and keep on truckin'. Leave the White House to Bill and Hillary again.

Second, I just can’t help but wonder if all these rumors of an L.A. Times story and all the gossip it’s inciting are merely a more subtle Swift-Boat campaign. Think about it; in its bare essence, the idea of Clinton as a lesbian just sounds like something Rove and his ilk would use to sabotage her campaign. But it wouldn’t be enough to just start the tongues wagging; that’s junior high stuff. No, to be in the Rove/Swift-Boat leagues, you’d have to stir in the idea that the truth is indeed out there, at the L.A. Times, and it’s only a matter of time before the facts come to light. Whether the story ever even materializes would be beside the point; the damage would be done. Because let’s face it – the easiest way to bring down a politician these days is by playing the gay/not-gay card. Card-carrying sicko David Vitter can run around in diapers with female prostitutes, and nothing happens. But closet-case Larry Craig taps his toes and maybe makes a veiled pass at a male cop, and he’s out in the cold faster than he can shout “I’m not gay!” Sadly, DC’s—and America’s—homophobia knows no bounds. Shit, to the radical reich and many religious nutwing voters, gays and lesbians are simply evil. I'm sure the reich are spreading this rumor with a frenzy.

Little wonder that Clinton’s poll numbers are already taking a downturn, which of course some people are claiming is evidence that the rumors are true and already affecting the Clinton campaign. I think that's falling prey to “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” or “After this; therefore, because of this;” just because the rumors came before a small drop in her poll numbers does not mean that one caused the other.

Further, combine all this with the (I’m sure) intentionally salacious-sounding hits you get when you google Huma Abedin’s name:

and it just seems to me like this is all too orchestrated, too convenient. In a race where Clinton has been the big favorite for quite some time, carefully protecting her centrist image and saying all the right things, it just seems very unlikely that this kind of thing could surface unless it were orchestrated by someone. Which leads me to ask: who would orchestrate such a thing? Answer: anyone on the republican side who’s worried about losing the ridiculously excessive power the repubs gained under the BushCo dictatorship.

So those are my thoughts on this issue; what do you think?


FranIAm said...

You see D, this is why I wanted you to take up the mantle on this one. I rushed through with a quick cross post and a snarky title.

That said- and let me say it out, loud and proud - my man Christopher at From the Left is no slouch and is a gay man. He has a great blog and I suggest it to all.

However, you really look at this from a different angle all together. I think you make some excellent points.

Hillary- I never know if I think she is gay or not. It is certainly in the interest of her detractors to say she is. And there is something so threatening to many men and women as well, when they see such a strong force, like Hillary. So, why not vilify her by making her gay. Like as if that is an insult? Hello. Of course, I am the most gay-lovingest person... so to me, no problem.

Frankly I think Gore does not want it. Why would he after all he has been through? Although I would personally be glad if he stepped in.

Anyway, back to a point I wanted to make... this rumor has been around for awhile. Is it a rumor or based on something? We may never know.

It is curious indeed and no doubt will get even more curiouser.

And frankly- whatever the case, the timing sucks now, but Hillary, as Christopher has indicated, needs to be more on top of gay rights, especially around marriage.

Of course, Barney Frank needs to be more on top of things too, but that is ENDA and another story altogether.

Great post Delia!

Mauigirl said...

Glad I found your blog through Fran. I agree with your assessment. It's all too convenient. And I don't think Hillary would make the same kind of stupid mistake that Bill did! First of all, she's too careful, second of all, she is probably way too busy to think about sex at all! However, it is true I've heard these rumors for awhile. And being from New Jersey, where our ex-governor resigned after he was found to have given an unqualified male lover a top level homeland security job, I guess I do admit you can never say never. In McGreevey's case I found out after the fact that rumors had circulated for years that he was gay, and in fact for most it was an open secret. So who knows for sure?

GETkristiLOVE said...

Gore has made so much more of an impact by not being president that I don't think that he'd ever run again, no matter what.

Spreading the rumor that Hillary is a lesbian is just good old fashioned mud-slinging by the Republicans.

dguzman said...

Thanks, Fran--both for linking to the original post and for your response.

As to whether Gore wants to run, I just can't help but think that somewhere inside him, he still wants it. Even if it's just to say "in yo face" to the idiots who sabotaged his last campaign, all the way up to using all these newly grabbed powers of the unitary executive to pretty much declare the new U.S. motto to be "In Nature We Trust."

Mauigirl--thanks for coming by! I agree--you can never say never. But those long-time rumors are always there about so many people--Alicia Keys, Whitney Houston, Ed Koch--you just never can tell. BTW, I hear McGreevy's becoming a preacher now or something church-related? How stupid!

Thanks, GKLove; see above re Gore, and yeah--I can totally see the rethugs pushing this idea to poke a hole in the Hillary balloon.

Dr. Monkey Von Monkerstein said...

I'm 100 perecnt behind Huma, Hillary not so much. And I agree, Mrs. Clinton is not lesbian, but Bill might be. :)

dguzman said...

Oh, you silly monkey, you!

And Huma is hot!

Randal Graves said...

I think your answer is my answer. Nothing the gooper slime throws against the wall has to stick, merely leave it's sticky residue like a wingnut Creepy Crawlie. There are still enough people, even on the left, who would have problems with a woman as President, let alone a lesbian. Hell, fucking Germany is more progressive than the US. We are so fucking dumb here.