She had to think about it? And he did too?

In today's print edition of the New York Times as Clinton Offers Support for Gays in Military, though on their web site as Clinton Seesaws on Question of Gay Morality, is a story that begins like this:

Asked if she believed homosexuality was immoral, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, initially said Wednesday that it was for “others to conclude,” but later issued a statement saying she did not think being gay was immoral.

And goes on like this:

Asked on ABC News on Wednesday if she agreed with General Pace’s view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said, “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.” She added, “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country, and I want make sure they can.”

Then on Wednesday night, a spokesman released a statement from Mrs. Clinton responding to the question: “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple,” she said. “It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.”

This is something she had to think about? She could say that she is "very proud" the gays she knows, but she couldn't bring herself to say that no, she didn't agree that they were inherently immoral.

Not that she's alone.

A rival of Mrs. Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was asked the same question three times on Wednesday and sidestepped the issue, according to an article in Newsday.

But a spokesman for Mr. Obama said last night that the senator disagreed with General Pace’s remarks and believed that homosexuality was not immoral.

One last note:

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, said he was concerned about the initial responses of both Democratic senators and said his group would seek clarification from their campaigns on Thursday. He compared their comments unfavorably with the rebuke of General Pace by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who said he “respectfully but strongly” disagreed that homosexuality was immoral.

John Warner can disagree without stopping to think about it, but neither Hillary nor Obama can. O tempora, o mores ... what a world. What a world.

Oh, as for the general? He's beyond belief. His precious moral military almost never goes after adulterers unless they're officers sleeping with some other soldier's spouse. When was the last time you heard of an adulterer getting kicked out? 1997, I believe - Kelly Flynn, that pilot who slept with a sergeant's husband. Adultery per se is not a UCMJ offense, and it's harder now than it was (Bush in 2002 adopted a lot of changes to the MSM, probably gearing up for needing to keep all the soldiers he could, though to be fair most of the changes had been proposed under Clinton - though dropped) to prosecute adultery at all - and even when it is, it's a low-level offense, not a "punishable offense." Adulterers get their hands slapped. Pace is a moron, trying to push his morality on the rest of the world.

And speaking of that - I really hope Pace goes to Iraq someday, or Afghanistan, and has to have his butt saved by one of those immoral Canadian or British gay soldiers... preferably a married (and faithful) one.