Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  This Doesn't Help (4.00)
    I gave her money but that's not what bothers me.  The sorriest thing is that Ms. Herseth's position reveals Democratic weakness. It shows Democrats will roll on this issue, which is now life or death for Bush.  The Repugs will fight hard and ruthlessly, with plenty of money.  Steph Herseth isn't a good sign the Democrats are able or willing to fight back hard. How much of the Democratic Party is going to be on message with Kerry and Edwards on this one? The Republicans smell fear and this can't be good.  By putting distance between herself and Kerry on this, Ms. Herseth helps Republicans paint Kerry as a Massachusettes liberal.  Good thing helping elect Bush is only a sin if Ralph Nader does it.

    High drama.  This is a test of Kerry's skill and character.  If he flinches it could be akin the McGovern praising Eagleton one day and dumping him a week later.  McGovern never recovered.  Kerry's only sane course is to fight hard and get everyone he can on message.

    The ride has begun.

    Revolution in our lifetime

    by kaleidescope on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:02:34 AM PST

    •  I wouldn't (4.00)
      exactly use a South Dakota congressional race as a litmus test for the national Democratic Party. If Bush doesn't carry SD by more than 15%, he's losing in a landslide. This should tell you something about the Herseth candidacy.

      As a poster said above, this is a large and diverse country. SD ain't San Francisco - hell, it ain't Fresno.

      Ben P

      Benjamin Disraeli + Robert LaFollette = Ben P

      by Ben P on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:22:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry's message (none)
      You say "Kerry's message" but I don't know what Kerry's message is on this FMA.  At that debate, I thought I heard him say he could vote for an amendment, depending on the "terminology."
      •  Kerry's message (none)
        Kerry's not the most principled politician, I'll grant you, but you do need to get your complaints straight Lois.  He was talking about the MA commonwealth amendment during that debate (he was asked as the jr. senator from the commonwealth that at the time was addressing the question in its state-level legislature.  Those comments were NOT his comments about a Federal amendment to the US constitution.  His statement about that, a topic which Bush raised, was very strongly against.

        "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself." -- Martin Vanbee

        by a gilas girl on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:00:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK (none)
          Thanks for setting me straight on the facts, but then, what IS his position on the Federal Marriage Amendment?

          I think he'll get squeezed into a corner and end up with Bush's position because having a position of being "opposed" to gay marriage leads there, inevitably.  Why is he opposed?  What does he oppose about putting the word "marriage" on committed partnerships of mature, adult gay Americans?  Whatever the reason for his opposition, how does it NOT lead to him supporting an amendment if the only way to "protect" other states from having to recognize MA gay marriages is to have a Federal Amendment?  

          Not nailing it down is just wishful thinking that because Kerry is a Democrat he is somehow "better" than Bush.  As a pragmatist, I would think it would be good to know now and maybe there are some gains for gay couples that could be salvaged/achieved rather than JUST end up with a Federal Amendment and those couples being totally stiffed and their hopes dashed.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site