Thursday, March 15, 2007

No opinion

Asked on ABC News on Wednesday if she agreed with General Pace’s view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said, “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.”


A rival of Mrs. Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was asked the same question three times on Wednesday and sidestepped the issue, according to an article in Newsday. (NY Times)

Do people need to completely agree with a politician's views on morality to vote for him? Do we need a politician's full approval of our lifestyle? Why are we asking these questions? Don't a politician's policies speak for themselves? Would it be possible, say, for a politician to think homosexuality is immoral but also believe people have the right to act immorally in this case?

As it is, Clinton and Obama's spokesmen cleared up the issue for us.

a spokesman for Mr. Obama said last night that the senator disagreed with General Pace’s remarks and believed that homosexuality was not immoral.


a spokesman released a statement from Mrs. Clinton responding to the question: “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple,” she said. “It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.”

That last part I can agree with. General Pace expressed regret for sharing his personal views. The press should not be pressing politicians to share their personal views.

No comments: