Rethinking Clinton and Obama

I realize that expecting a politician to answer every question the way I would is ridiculous. There are lots of statements that need to be finessed for a general audience. And I understand that sometimes questions are asked that require a bit of thought, and an off-the-cuff response can send politicians down a path they'd rather not tread. Still, I'm terribly disappointed in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

When asked point-blank if they agreed with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace's hopelessly regressive and inflammatory comments that same-sex relationships were immoral, they were equivocal. They dodged and evaded, and only after pressure from gay rights groups did they say, No, I don't believe homosexuality is immoral. How hard was that? Do you believe Jews are immoral? Do you believe equality is optional? Do you believe we should hand over the keys to the country to right-wing nuts? You don't have to think about it for a while. The answer is no. You say no. The next leader of the free world says NO.

Also interesting, from yesterday's Salon.com War Room:

So which leading Democratic presidential contender has shown the small amount of courage to say, right out of the box, that Pace is wrong and that homosexual relationships aren't immoral? That would be John Edwards. CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Edwards Tuesday: "In your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?" His response: "I don't share that view. And I would go further than that ... I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy."