Listen, I'm actually sympathetic to the notion that opposing DOMA was a risky move for Bill Clinton in '96. Yes, he was easily beating Dole and could've won anyway. But, risky doesn't have to be fatal, it entails giving your opponent an opening, a chance, particularly when they didn't have one. And there's no question that the marriage issue was a huge weapon for republicans, whether it was big enough to derail Clinton we don't know.
On the other hand, what I am sick and tired of is hearing people defend Clinton based on this false premise that he couldn't veto DOMA without being overridden. This sort of view displays a lack of understanding of national politics and party identification with the president, especially in the last 25 years. This whole theory is built on a premise that the roll call on DOMA is static, that Clinton, a popular (~57% at the time) president and leader of the democratic party, having a different opinion on DOMA would not change the votes of the democrats who voted against it. Thats hogwash.
Read More