WASHINGTON, D.C., April 15, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Hillary Clinton has released a video announcing her candidacy for U.S. president in which she compares her personal political ambition to big events in the lives of everyday Americans. The video, called “Getting Started,” shows people getting ready to take on new challenges, from new spring gardens to new business opportunities to new parenthood.
Most of the scenarios featured are fairly universal – a mom moving house in search of a better school district for her child, a couple expecting their first baby, a woman getting ready to retire, a child preparing for his role in the school play. But one common “life event” celebrated in the two-minute ad – marriage – seems calculated to appeal directly to a narrow but powerful constituency, the homosexual lobby, as the only engaged couple featured is a pair of gay men.
“I’m getting married this summer to someone I really care about,” says a man’s voice, as two men walk down a street together hand-in-hand. Later in the ad, another homosexual couple turns up – this time, two women who are seen nuzzling each other’s faces and kissing on a sofa.
The ad’s emphasis on gay relationships was so strong that it prompted news broadcasters in Russia to mark its content with an 18+ “mature” rating to comply with laws forbidding pro-homosexual propaganda for younger audiences.
Meanwhile, back home in the U.S., Family Research Council President Tony Perkins slammed Ms. Clinton for “elevating the homosexual agenda above other key American priorities,” in the video, which, he noted, neglected to mention issues like the faltering economy and Islamic terrorism in favor of gay “marriage.”
Perkins also pointed out what he saw as a possible Freudian slip on Clinton’s new campaign website, which initially launched with the words, “[Hillary has] fought children and families all her career.” Perkins acknowledged the statement was likely a typo, but said it was accurate nonetheless.
“For once … Hillary Clinton may be telling the truth — and on her campaign website, no less!” Perkins wrote in his Patriot Post newsletter. “Over her long career as a senator and America’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton has been a global advocate for abortion-on-demand and the complete demolition of the natural family, making her anything but an ally of children or the family.”
Meanwhile, American Family Association governmental affairs director Sandy Rios took to the airwaves to complain about the ad’s conspicuous lack of traditional two-parent families.
Amongst the calculated diversity of the ad – which features two apparently single mothers, two gay couples, a few childless or retired heterosexual couples, a few racially diverse singles, an African-American couple expecting a baby, and a pair of brothers – Rios said one demographic was notably absent: “the Anglo-American husband-and-wife with family in church. We don’t see that,” Rios said.
Rios was not the only commentator to notice the exclusionary nature of the ad’s diversity. CNN anchor Carol Costello devoted an entire segment to the question of why Clinton’s ad focused on single mothers, gay men and minorities to the virtual exclusion of white nuclear families and straight men. “Who is Clinton’s audience?” Costello asked, bringing in commentators S.E. Cupp and Donna Brazile to debate the topic.
Cupp, a Republican strategist, said Clinton risks “overselling” to feminists, gays, and other identity voters at the cost of alienating straight males and conservative women. She compared the announcement’s niche-based approach to Democrat Mark Udall’s failed 2014 campaign for U.S. Senate from Colorado, in which he so aggressively courted feminist, pro-abortion voters that he earned the nickname “Mark Uterus” from the national media.
But Brazile, a longtime adviser to both Clinton and her husband, Bill, said the ad’s focus on gays and feminists was likely calculated to appeal to Millennial Democrats, who overwhelmingly backed the more liberal Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic primaries. Brazile said Clinton may be banking on younger Millennials – those who were too young to vote for her last time around – to be just as, if not more liberal than their elder counterparts were eight years ago. And in a race where her advanced age is already a contentious issue, it’s possible she feels the need to establish her progressive street cred with brand new Democratic voters who were barely out of diapers when she and her husband departed the White House. Given the mainstream media’s current obsession with all things homosexual, Clinton may have deduced that the easiest way to pass the progressive litmus test is to wave the rainbow flag.
Clinton first announced her support for legalized same-sex “marriage” in a 2013 video for the “Human Rights Campaign” homosexual activist group. In that video, she called the rapid cultural shift toward acceptance of homosexual behavior “breathtaking and inspiring,” but said “the journey is far from over.”
Clinton has also signaled her commitment to gay issues by selecting Robby Mook, an openly homosexual man, as campaign manager for her 2016 run – a first for a major presidential campaign. Mook, 35, is perhaps best known for running longtime Democratic fundraiser and Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe’s lavishly-funded 2013 campaign for Virginia governor, in which he slammed McAuliffe’s opponent, Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, as a misogynist and bigot for his pro-life Christian worldview and opposition to same-sex “marriage.”
So far, the approach seems to be working, at least on self-styled “progressives.” Bryan Buttler, a gay commentator for Philadelphia Magazine, praised Clinton for making homosexual relationships so prominent in her first presidential campaign ad.
“This may very well be the first time that a major Presidential candidate featured gay couples in a positive way via campaign materials,” Buttler wrote. “No doubt, Clinton has been an ally for the LGBT community in the past, but her kick-off video clearly shows that she is unabashedly a full-on supporter.”
The two gay men featured in the ad, Jared Milrad and Nathan Johnson, told the Washington Blade they did not know they were being taped for a campaign announcement, but were thrilled nonetheless.
“When we were first contacted, they basically told us a little bit about what they would be doing and said they were interviewing people going through big changes in life and also said that it was something affiliated with Hillary, but didn’t exactly say what it would be,” Johnson told the Blade.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
“We were really excited to see that our interview was featured in the campaign announcement,” Milrad said. “It was particularly moving to see Secretary Clinton feature a gay couple engaged to be legally married, the first of any major presidential candidate. To us, this decision demonstrates Secretary Clinton’s commitment to LGBT equality and the type of inclusive leader she would be as president.”
Upon the video’s release, Milrad and Johnson immediately took to Twitter to invite Clinton to attend their planned “wedding” ceremony in Chicago this July. Both men said they plan to donate to Clinton’s campaign and possibly volunteer for her on the road.
But while homosexual activists and their allies celebrate Clinton’s self-proclaimed support, pro-family leaders are warning would-be Republican opponents not to overestimate the influence of the loud but statistically insignificant number of voters who are truly motivated by the gay agenda.
“[Clinton is] a lock for the 2.3% of the American people who are gay or bisexual. Meanwhile … the other 97.7% of the electorate isn't,” wrote Bryan Fischer, head of the American Family Association, in a column on Tuesday.
“The point here quite simply is that GOP candidates must realize that there is no possible way for them to out-pander a hardcore liberal like Hillary on homosexuality. She will be able to trump them every time. So there's no point in even trying,” Fischer wrote. “She will always be able to make one more promise than you will, simply because there is no logical place for her to stop. She will always be able to go further than a Republican in promoting sexually abnormal behavior because in a liberal's world there are virtually no recognizable restraints on human sexual behavior. A conservative can never say that or believe that without forfeiting any and all rights to call himself a conservative.”
“So Republicans, you might as well come out of the gate advocating fearlessly for natural marriage,” wrote Fischer. “You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.”
