Skip to main content

View Diary: Stephanie Herseth and the Hate Amendment (423 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I went through this in 1992 and here we go again.. (3.60)
    I realize a lot of this site is former hardcore Dean people (I'm only saying that to differeniate all of you from myself, who supported Dean but was much more mild about it) but there is sadly a time when politics has to have its say and being courageous is just handing the other side the knife to gut you with.  If Herseth came out strongly against this amendment she would lose, period.  Which is why Dean lost, not the media, not the Democratic establishment (most of who were scampering over to his side), but because he came out uncompromisingly (and the fact that he probably should have concentrated more resources in Iowa and not gone into a negative ad war...but that's another post).  

    Heck, if a Presidential Dem. candidate came out strongly against this they'd lose Michigan (Why?  Because Detroit, while strongly Democrat in many ways is surprisingly culturally conservative, particularly in regard to gay marriage and Dems can't win Michigan without Detroit...and Jim Blanchard found out in 1990).

    Then again, this is issue is far from my main issue and I'm not remotely litmus testing on it, so I'm in a minority here.

    "All Politics is Local" - former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil

    by Mister Gloom on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:25:40 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  She doesn't have to come out strongly (4.00)
      against it.  It's enough for her to say leave it to the states, or let's see what happens with DOMA, or this isn't big enough to mess with the Constitution over.  Politicians waffle about anything and everything, all day long.  If she waffled about this, nobody would give a damn.  Instead, she pandered to the religious right.  Who needs that from Democrats?  That's what Republicans are for.
      •  Precisely (none)
        People have been mentioning how Dems are divided on the issue of gay marriage.  What would be more interesting to me is whether they are as divided on the issue of amending the Constitution to prevent it.

        To me, that's a key distinction.  I'm frankly shocked that a person who went to law school and purports to represent even an ever so slightly left of center position would advocate amending the Constitution to expressly single out a particular class of citizens and explicitly restrict their rights in a way intended to be as permanent as possible.

        It runs counter to everything I ever learned about the framing and evolution of the Constitution.  

        Is that a ring in your nose, or are you just watching TV?

        by Gooch on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:03:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site