My suspicion is that what he said in 1996 was a purely political statement and was dishonest. He signed DOMA for political reasons, as he did almost everything.

Of course, I agree with that assessment, but it's worth pointing out the obvious sometimes.

It's the same Bill Clinton. I only hope Americans see that Hillary has the same character before it's too late.

Slow news day, guys?

Mike Willingham makes it sound as though making decisions for political expediency is a trait unique to the Clintons. Is George W. Bush any different? If you think so, I'd like to hear some rational explanation for his various flip flops on the campaign finance reform bill that he first called unconstitutional, then signed, then worked hard to weaken, then went to court to try and strengthen when it served his purposes during the campaign. This is hardly unique to the Clintons, it is a trait of nearly all politicians.

Ed, you make a valid point. I agree that this is no great new discovery in politics - Bill or otherwise. I am just continually surprised at how when Bill and Hill "waffle", it's always pointed out. Maybe it's my inferiority complex most Arkansans have?

Clinton's statements seem to me to be entirely consistent with what I take to be one of the standard moderate views here: that marriage remains as 'traditionally' configured, but that civil partnerships or some such be allowed, with all of the privileges that the state currently grants only to marriages. It's not waffle; it is, in fact, nuance. (Yes, yes, sometimes "nuance" is just another word for "waffle", or indeed for "lie", but I don't see any evidence here for its being anything other than, well, nuance.)