RECENT  POSTS:  » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling » Video: With marriage equality, Texas could put in a pool at the Alamo » CWA ably demonstrates ludicrousness of American Christian right's persecution complex » Video: CBS News hosts '50 Years Later, Civil Rights;' includes marriage equality, obviously » Audio: White House? Nah. But in race for most anti-gay House member, Bachmann a strong contender » Brian Brown is the victim, y'all. How many times does he have to tell you? » Congrats, gay activists—Bryan Fischer has found new group for his weekly 'Nazi' branding » Maggie Gallagher: Sexual orientation is 'more akin to religion' than to race » NOM is totally popular (*in Ethiopia) » What constitutes 'absolute pure evil' in the eyes of Liberty University dean?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/13/2009

Clinton's successor vs. Clinton era policy

by Jeremy Hooper

GillibrandIs Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) on the verge of some righteous DADT maneuvering? Yes, says The Daily Beast's Jason Bellini:

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is considering bringing the battle over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to the Senate this week, by introducing an amendment that would put an 18-month moratorium on the discharge of gays serving in the military, The Daily Beast has learned.
"Don't Ask" Fight Hits Senate [Daily Beast]

For their part, Sen. Gillibrand's people say that nothing is final. Except, of course, being discharged because you were born to love one way instead of the other -- that's pretty binding at this point.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Ok this title is misleading.

Yes, Gillibrand is Hillary Clinton's successor, but the Clinton era policy (Don't Ask, Don't tell) is Bill Clinton's 1990s Adminstration policy.

There's a big difference Jeremy.

Posted by: Matt | Jul 13, 2009 4:48:09 PM

Huh? I fail to see the point, Matt. Why, exactly, would I want to "mislead" anyone on this? I'm not even blaming anyone for anything -- just using a quasi-coincidence in a benign headline. Never crossed my mind that there was outrage potential.

And while I see no real need to waste another word, I'll go on to say that a technical read clears me even further. The first part speaks to a specific Clinton, while the second refers to the "Clinton era". One could argue that H. Clinton, like Doc martens or hootie and the blowfish, was very much a part of that era. The way the phrase is used, it's meant to refer more to the 90's than to wiliam j specifically.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 13, 2009 5:26:22 PM

Thanks for explaining. When I read it, i took it the wrong way, at least the headline.

I wasn't outrage, just a little peeved with the headline.

Thanks again for explaining.

Oh, and I'm big reader of your site. I rarely comment, until at this point.

Keep up the good work and fight!!!

Posted by: Matt | Jul 13, 2009 7:00:24 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails