Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Shrum: Bill Clinton urged Kerry to reject gay rights in '04

Posted by Guest Blogger at 1:26 PM on May 30, 2007.


Ben Smith: Bob Shrum's new book alleges that Bill Clinton suggested that John Kerry back Bush's proposed federal amendment banning gay marriage in the lead up to the 2004 election.
johnkerry
kerry

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Ben Smith, originally appeared on The Politico

Bob Shrum's book has already caused its share of trouble for John Edwards, in part from Shrum's recollection that Edwards wasn't comfortable with gay people in 1998.

But the book is really sort of a pile of unexploded ordnance, and the person who comes off as most indifferent to questions of gay rights isn't Edwards, but Bill Clinton.

A version of this story is already in print. In 2004, Newsweek reported, without a named source, that Bill Clinton had suggested Kerry "to back local bans on gay marriage."

Shrum has more, and different, detail:

"Clinton, Kerry reported at the time, did suggest blunting Bush's appeal to cultural conservatives with a reprise of Clinton's Sister Souljah moment in 1992 when he'd denounced her call for violence against whites -- and done it as conspicuously as possible in front of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.

"Kerry, Clinton ventured, should consider defying Democratic interest groups by endorsing the Bush proposal for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

Shrum reports that "this was a flip-flop too far for Kerry."

It's also worse in Shrum's version -- the federal amendment, versus state amendments -- than in Newsweek's telling. And Bill Clinton does, reportedly, continue to play a small role in Hillary's campaign.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, gay rights, gay marriage, kerry, election04, shrum

Ben Smith is a regular blogger for The Politico


Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
You thought only the left formed up into circular firing squads.
Post by Jed Lewison. November 8, 2009.
House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Surprise, surprise
Posted by: VAGreen on May 30, 2007 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clinton years were nearly continuous Sister Souljah time for progressives. I'm not surprised Slick Willie would do something like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They are politicians. Why is this a surprise, especially for Clinton who
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on May 30, 2007 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was a masterful politician and, basically, ran government policy by polling data. Is this wrong? Well, on the one hand the majority of the population is probably against gay marriage so one could argue a politican should also be against it. Then again one could argue, as the right-wing radio does, that a politician who just 'follows polls' is just an opportunist and this is dangerous to the country. Probably it lies somewhere in the middle and the politician should either: 1) state their actual views clearly and the reasoning behind them and then win/lose based on them.
or
2) change their views based on the beliefs of their constituencies and always vote with the majority.
For national office of the Presidency and the Senate I would say you should have #1. For local offices, or even the House, you could get away with #2.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part of a Pattern
Posted by: bigbad on May 30, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton sold out the Democratic base with NAFTA, screwed the gays with "don't ask, don't tell", and betrayed his wife with Monica. Of course he would recommend that Kerry sell out too. Now Bill hangs with true buddies like Daddy Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all suspect
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on May 30, 2007 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politico is a RW site; they want to taint Edwards and Kerry. Why is Alternet running junk from Politico? Will the Drudge Report be the next source of a column at Alternet?

Schrum is an unemployed consultant who's infamous for losing, running his Dem campaigns into the ground with his love for the capitulation to the Repubs strategy as 'centrist'; and of course it follows that he's the type from the center-left that is loved in the Beltway media as a tool of the DC insider conventional wisdom makers. Schrum has a book to sell, he can 'tell all' and blame his bad advice and poor record on others, slam the Dem Party leaders and make them look bad so he can get attention and sell more books & become even more beloved in the Beltway media.

What he says should be trusted about as much as Dick Morris and Pat Cadell, meaning not at all. His credibility is shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Restrictions on The People have no place in our Constitution.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 30, 2007 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of our constitution is to limit the ability of an arbitrary entity we call gubbanit to exercise authority over how we live our lives.

What two adults with their naughty bits, and how they choose to celebrate that choice, is no place for gubbanit regulation. This is yet another sign of big, wrong gubbanit run amok, attempting to assume authority that it neither carries or is entitled to assume.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Classic Clintonism...
Posted by: CatDad on May 30, 2007 11:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton got massive gay support in 92....and we got DOMA, Don't Ask/Don't Tell...and now we hear Clinton wanted to bait us in 2004 to get back voters he drove a way with his NAFTA/free-trade deal....big surprise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GASP!!!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 31, 2007 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean politicians BESIDES Republicans have been against gay rights????????? THE HELL YOU SAY!!!

Is anyone ACTUALLY surprised by this "bombshell"????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]