Are you excited about having Hillary as run for President yet?
From Mediaite:
During a contentious interview on NPR’s Fresh Air, Clinton scolded host Terry Gross for persistently asking questions about the former Secretary of State’s “evolution” on the issue of gay marriage….Clinton publicly endorsed same-sex marriage only last year, leading many to surmise that she either withheld her true feelings on the issue all along, or had simply come around to the voting public’s increasing support for the issue. On Thursday morning, Gross attempted to understand Clinton’s change of heart, provoking a testy response.fter repeated questioning and several defensive responses, Gross told her interviewee: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand.”
“No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify,” Clinton fired back. “I think you’re trying to say I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons, and that’s just flat wrong.”
She continued: “So let me just state what I feel like you are implying and repudiate it: I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue, and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress we’re making.“
What could this possibly mean? What is Clinton repudiating? That she opposed gay marriage until last year? That she said she opposed gay marriage? What is she proud of? That she only changed her mind when it was politically expedient? That she came to the conclusion that gay marriage was a human right after lots of other non-gay American—like me—had been making the point for years? She has a strong record of what—supporting gay marriage once she changed her mind last year, shortly before she had no power to actually do anything? Supporting her husband’s signing of DOMA into law—“Two Presidents for one!”? Opposing it, but keeping quiet? Never touching the issue while she was a U.S. Senator?
Clinton doesn’t even attempt to rebut whatever it is she thinks Gross is unfairly suggesting. She is just indignant that she is being asked to be open and candid. There are only three possibilities, after all:
1. She was always in favor of gay marriage but didn’t have the courage to say so.
2. She was opposed to gay marriage, and it took her until last year to see why this was a wrongful stance, neatly but coincidentally occurring as a majority of the country expressed its support in polls.
3. She is still opposed to gay marriage, but now embraces it as a political necessity.
Which of these is worthy of pride? #2 is the best of the three, clearly, but it is hardly a badge of honor. Praiseworthy would be candor and honesty—“Yes, I opposed gay marriage until recently, but I see now that I was wrong, and should have supported it sooner,” or even “Yes, I’m still uncomfortable with gay marriage, but I’m a lawyer, and I recognize that the courts are correct: gay couples should be able to marry.”
We won’t get that from Hillary, though. What we got, through Terry Gross, was “How dare you?”
Oh, yes, I can’t wait for Hillary to run…
________________________
Facts and Graphic: Mediaite
Ethics Alarms 
Don’t forget — it also was Bill who came up with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It was a lousy policy from the start — but one would think that either Clinton would have to answer questions about this without getting snippy.
Here’s what Ann Althouse just wrote:
To which I say—WHAT? “Mental and verbal skill”??? To avoid accountability for cowardice? For double-talking and spinning like mad—obviously? How can that response in preference to candor ever be admired?
It’s only ducking and spinning when it’s someone you don’t like. It’s mental and verbal skill when it’s someone you do. Politics and government are no different than sports, where you cheer the home team and boo the visitor. Hilary will be the home team for the liberals and apparently most women, unshakably.
We’ve already got a champion blame-shifter in office, and look what good it’s done us.
Clinton doesn’t even attempt to rebut whatever it is she thinks Gross is unfairly suggesting. She is just indignant that she is being asked to be open and candid.
Bingo:
This is the new debate tactic. If you cannot obfuscate your answers, attack the questioner. Hagel did the same yesterday when asked why Bergdahl was not brought home immediately even though soldiers with severe trauma were routinely brought home. Hagel’s response when he could not pass it off on the doctors he said he was offended by what the Congressman was implying. Funny, Bergdahl is on his way home as I write this now. I guess he mad a miraculous recovery.
The President is always offended when asked hard questions about his veracity. It’s always “how dare you impugn my motives”. Well Mr. President, Madame Secretary and now Mr. Hagel, you routinely lie to us and when caught you parse your language to try to weasel out of what you said and wanted us to hear.
Ironically the one that does not try to just lie his way through life is Joe Biden. I can only criticize him for just not thinking before he starts talking.
Hehe, actually it’s an old one, if Colonial Williamsburg is anything to go by. The reenactor who plays Thomas Jefferson (meticulously researched, not a hack), if asked a question about TJ’s historically dubious relations with slaves, will ask the questioner what state he is from, then say that that state produces rude people.
She’ll be getting much tougher questions than this one in the months to come, me thinks.