The ports issue was a no-brainer according to just about everyone. Even people like me who thought NOT doing the deal was more problematic than killing it, had to acknowledge that the politics were irresistable.

There is another issue with similarly lop-sided politics--gay marriage. This makes it particularly tricky for Hillary, who needs to be "moderate" to win the presidency, but "liberal" to get the nomination.

A leaked memo from the Empire State Pride Agenda has revealed the level of dissatisfaction among gays with Clinton's public positions on gay marriage.

“Supporting an LGBT fundraiser for Hillary Clinton will actually hurt our community,” Van Capelle stated in a February 10 e-mail message sent confidentially to ESPA’s two-dozen board members. In the same message, first reported on the New York Observer’s Web site on Tuesday, Van Capelle said that he would not “lend my name and sell tickets” to a March 10 gay fundraiser planned for Diane von Furstenberg’s Studio on West 12th Street.

Many prominent leaders in the community, including newly-elected City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, are part of the event’s host committee.

...

“This year, Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson, Alan Hevesi, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Green, Sean Maloney, and others are running for statewide office and are in favor of marriage equality for gays and lesbians,” Van Capelle wrote, referring to half a dozen Democratic hopefuls for various offices. “When our struggle is over, they will be recorded as having been on the right side of history and as of now Hillary Clinton will not be with them.”

In explaining why donating money to Clinton’s 2006 Senate re-election campaign, widely seen as a precursor to a presidential bid in 2008, would “actually hurt our community,” Van Capelle, who said she deserved another term, wrote, “It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community. We have become a community that throws money at politicians and we demand nothing in return. And that’s what we get—nothing. It’s the wrong message to send.”

Its an extraordinary complaint in view of the political sophistication of gays and lesbians, who are effectively working both parties for a single goal--the legitimatization of gay marriage. The level of frustration this represents is substantial, as confirmed by Andrew Sullivan.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a reputation as a principled liberal - at least that's what her base and her enemies seem to think. In practice, of course, she has always been a Clinton - a waffler, prevaricator, straddler. So it's no surprise to hear her complete non-answer on the question of same-sex marriage. Here's a transcript of a June 18 interview with Senator Clinton on the Brian Lehrer WNYC show in New York City:

Lehrer: The lead story in the New York Times today is about Canada's decision to fully legalize gay marriage. do you think the United States should do that?

Clinton: Well, obviously in our system it is unlikely ever to be a national decision. It is a state-by-state decision because of the way our federal system operates, where states define what the conditions for marriage, or domestic partnership, or civil union might be, so I don't think that we will ever face it. In fact there is a law on the books, passed before I was in the congress, the Defense of Marriage Act, which goes so far as to say that even if one state does it, other states under our full faith and credit clause of the constitution don't have to recognize it.

Lehrer: But is Canada setting a good example, on that you'd like to see spread through the states here?

Clinton: Well, I have long advocated domestic partnership laws and civil unions, to me...

Lehrer: That's different from marriage.

Clinton: Well, marriage means something different. you know, marriage has a meaning that I... I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can't have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is.

Lehrer: But not with the context of marriage.

Clinton: Yeah, I, I think that is, you know... First of all, I think that it is unlikely, if not impossible, to be something nationally accepted in our country, but I also think that we can realize the same results for may committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.

So there you have it. The Senator from New York State is opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. And that's one thing both the right and left will be reluctant to broadcast.

Some might argue that Van Capelle is being naive and impatient, but his anger is a lot easier to understand in light of Bill Clinton's betrayal of gays when he implemented the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Clinton position is "whatever is good for the Clintons" and supporters can be thrown overboard any time they become an inconvenience.

The argument that if gays can support Republican candidates they should also be able to support Hillary, misses an important point--one supports Democrats who openly embrace them to advance the gay agenda. One supports Republicans to insure that they don't oppose it. Hillary just doesn't fit into either category.