I'm bitter about Hillary constantly mentioning "San Francisco" to curry favor with the religious right

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Anyone else notice that Hillary and her staff keep gratuitously mentioning "San Francisco" when talking about Obama's "bitter" comments? Markos noticed it too: "I remember the good ol' days when only Republicans used to demonize San Francisco," Markos wrote yesterday. A DailyKos diarist noticed it too, as did the readers at popular gay news and culture site Datalounge. As did some folks interviewed by the SF Chronicle:

So the most shocking part of the whole incident, he said, has been the appearance that "Hillary Clinton wants to ... throw in with the critique from the far right" in appearing to feed the image of an out-of-touch "San Francisco-style Democrat."

It suggests "that the Clintons are so committed to the political tactics that they'll do virtually anything to advance a step without regard for the long term implications," he said. "Most Democrats and most Republicans will not attack their opponent in such a way as to give massive fodder to the other side in the general election."

But "she's just writing the playbook for the Republicans in November..."

And we all know what San Francisco is code for. Now let's examine what Hillary was after. From the NYT:

Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. Obama’s “guns or religion”
comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters...

Value voters. That's PC media slang for the religious right. Here are a few examples of Hillary dropping the SF-bomb concerning the bitter thing:

Hillary's appearance at the Alliance for Manufacturing Forum in PA: "I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive.

Then at the Compassion Forum (irony much?) on April 13, she did it again:

CAMPBELL BROWN: But, senator, you’ve been out there on the stump attacking him pretty aggressively over this. And his response has been, and he said it pretty bluntly tonight, shame on you. You know that he is a man of faith—this is what he's saying—and to suggest that he is demeaning religion is you playing politics.

HRC: I do think it raises a lot of concerns and we've seen that exhibited in the last several days by people here in Pennsylvania, in Indiana where I was yesterday, and elsewhere, because it did seem so much in line with what often we are charged with. Someone goes to a closed door fund-raiser in San Francisco and makes comments that do seem elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.

Again, why throw in San Francisco?

Then check out Hillary's Web site. It's littered with "bitter" San Francisco references, including the last one, that's quite damning. Here, here, here, here, and especially here:

MT Endorsement Watch: “Yellowstone County Commissioner Bill Kennedy says he is endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton…[Kennedy said:] ‘In Montana, going to church or going hunting is part of our heritage, not something we ‘cling to’ out of bitterness or frustration…Sen. Obama showed a real disconnect with rural Montana. It might work to look down on us from San Francisco, but it won’t sell when he comes back to Montana.’”

Really? From San Francisco? What is that supposed to mean? Oh, and before I have to deal with all the "Hillary is SUPER pro-gay" responses, yes she is. She's also super pro-black, pro-gun-control, and pro-NAFTA. But when it became expedient for her campaign to race-bait, embrace guns, and then claim she was always anti-NAFTA, Hillary flipped on a dime.

As for the gays, yes, the Clintons are very pro-gay, until they're not. Remember DOMA, and Bill Clinton's radio ads touting his support for the anti-gay bill? Here's the NYT coverage of the ads at the time:

In a radio advertisement aimed at religious conservatives, the Clinton campaign is showcasing the President’s signature on a bill banning gay marriages in spite of earlier White House complaints that the issue amounted to ”gay baiting.”… Mr. Clinton signed the law early on a Saturday morning, minimizing news coverage. He said he had long agreed with the principles in the bill but hoped it would not be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals…

Longtime Clinton friend David Mixner reminds us:

In fact, after proclaiming to the community how painful it was for him to sign it, President Clinton’s reelection campaign had ads up in the South touting the legislation within two weeks!

Let's also revisit my post of last June in which we learned that Bill Clinton was advising John Kerry to endorse the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. What kind of advice do you think Bill is giving Hillary about how to reach "values voters" - well, we already know his advice, throw the gays under the bus - and do you really think she's not taking it?

Let me also share the story of how Hillary's people freaked when Joe and I told them we were going to ask Hillary a "gay" question at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting a year ago (I mean, the question was about DOMA and civil unions, hardly anything she hasn't answered before). Joe literally got yelled at for even suggesting that we were going to ask Hillary something about DOMA. We were told that we had to give Hillary and her people the question in advance. We refused. We were then told that we couldn't ask her about DOMA since her husband signed it into law - apparently, it would be embarrassing to her. You'll be surprised to hear that we never got the interview. And remember that a year ago February, we were one of the only top blogs that even liked Hillary. Senator Dodd, on the contrary, had no problem answering the same question at the same meeting. Wesley Clark gave a great answer as well.