Hillary Clinton's Gay-Marriage Problem (The Atlantic Monthly)

[yuiyoshida]

Hillary Clinton didn't refrain from supporting same-sex marriage for political reasons—before last year, she earnestly believed that marriage equality should be denied to gays and lesbians. That's the story the 66-year-old Democrat settled on when NPR host Terry Gross pressed her on her views. The admission is easily the most significant in the interview with the former senator, secretary of State, and presidential candidate, though much of the subsequent media attention has focused on the perception that there was a "heated exchange" where Clinton "lashed out" at her interviewer.* The mild tension stemmed from persistent questioning as Clinton obfuscated on an issue that could damage her chances in a 2016 primary but is relatively unlikely to hurt her in a contest against a Republican, given that her coalition is so much stronger on gay rights than the opposition.

In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/

[Thinkingabout]

1. But she did not against gun control.

[upaloopa]

2. Trashing

[joeybee12]

3. While Obama was still against it, as SOS she couldn't very well

come out for it...Obama was late to the game as well.

[sabrina 1]

9. Bernie was FOR IT 20 years ago and he voted against DOMA nor did he give a damn who else was for it

or against it. It was the RIGHT thing to do, to NOT deny Civil Rights to ANY segment of the population.

So what you're saying is that both Obama and Clinton didn't have the guts to do the right thing as Bernie Sanders did?

He showed foresight and good judgement when he went against the 'conventional wisdom' AGAIN and support the Civil Rights of Gay Americans even though most of his colleagues were either too scared to do the right thing, or had their fingers in the wind and decided it would not be politically advantageous to do so at that time.

How shameful, really. To put politics before the Civil Rights of all Americans. With leaders like that it's no wonder it has taken so long to get Civil Rights for AAs and Gays and Women.

And THAT is the reason I am a Bernie supporters. He has been ahead of all of them on all of the major issues, never caring how popular or unpopular his decisions were, so long as they were RIGHT.

[madokie]

133. You said it and I agree

"And THAT is the reason I am a Bernie supporters. He has been ahead of all of them on all of the major issues, never caring how popular or unpopular his decisions were, so long as they were RIGHT."

Senator Sanders has yet to show me he checks a weather vane before he does anything. I like that in a person and especially like that in a candidate for our highest office. The man is simply the real deal. Good man on a mission. A mission of returning our country back to us the 99%'s

[MannyGoldstein]

78. She waited a year or so after Obama "evolved". nt

[merrily]

115. 1994 Illinois Senate candidate Obama was for equal marriage.

2008 POTUS candidate Obama evolved, in Rick Warren's church, to supporting contract rights, "but, when it comes to marriage, God is in the mix." 2012 POTUS re-election Candidate Obama evolved back to the position of 1994 Illinois Senate Candidate Obama. No doubt each of those evolutions was totally sincere and not politically motivated. However, I heartily applaud his positions on GLBTQ issues since then.

2008 POTUS candidate Hillary, upon hearing from a lesbian disappointed in President Bill Clinton's administration re: members of her community, replied, "I thought we did very well." Glad 2016 POTUS candidate Hillary no longer praises and takes ownership of things like DOMA and DADT.

[Exilednight]

106. Yes she could. A great SoS has no problem going against their boss. Their

Job, part of it at least, is to inform and advise the President.

While she didn't have the authority to make it official U.S. policy, she did have the microphone to say that US policy is wrong.

[merrily]

113. She did not become SOS until after 2009. What was stopping her before that?

Besides, Biden came out for it while VP before Obama did.

Sorry. This excuse doesn't wash.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality

I'm not going to question her position on this.

She seems to have a lot of support among the LGBT community.

She's a freind to the community it seems to me.

[yuiyoshida]

6. Okay

[yuiyoshida]

103. YES!!! THAT MUST BE IT....DAMN IT, YOU GOT ME!!!

I ALSO hate Japanese people...next???

[Rex]

145. Well what else did you expect? An eloquent reply? Something intellectually stimulating?

This is DU where the most intellectually lazy people show up to yell 'hater'. It beats them having to think very hard and for some in this crowd that probably is a good thing.

[yuiyoshida]

155. fuck it, I am done with this

I will not wear the Hillary hater crown, I am done with this...私は終了しています。
Watashi wa shūryō shite imasu.

[Rex]

156. Just brush em off. Like the POTUS does.

Trust me, not worth your time or waste of emotions. There are just some really immature people that post here. I am envious you can write in Japanese. I am ignorant to what it says.

[Bernie 2016]

158. !

Atsui kawa ga hitsuyō to sa remasu. Anata wa umaku yatte iruga, kore wa koko de, subete no shuyōna tatakai no tame ni seijōdesu. Anata no sonzai wa, anata ga aisare, hogo sa rete iru bānī· sandāsugurūpu ni modotte yōkyū sa rete imasu. Sore wa anata no shōki no tame ni hijō ni jūyōda, to watashitachi wa anata ga watashitachi no izureka o shite iru yō ni, anata o ushinaitaku arimasen.

[yuiyoshida]

159. Please don't use a translator

Last edited Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

They don't work. If you are going to write Japanese, please learn the language or tell me in English. Thank you.

[uppityperson]

160. What did that say? Thanks

[yuiyoshida]

161. Translators don't work with Japanese

The message comes out totally garbled. I don't understand any of it, makes no sense to me. Verbs are used wrongly, and sentences make no sense at all. I would rather he tell me in English than use a internet translator.

[marym625]

15. Not this one.

I find her very recent support suspect at the least.

[Ms. Toad]

64. Not from this lesbian.

And I would suggest that her support might be more vocal than plentiful. Particularly on DU.

She is a friend to the community when it is politically expedient to be one - which happens to be the case at the moment. If the tide turns back (which I can't imagine), as was the case until very recently, she would no longer be a friend.

[merrily]

114. When anything looks to her and her advisor as though it might help her reach her goals, she's there

Otherwise, not so much.

You nailed it.

During the 2008 primary, a lesbian said to her something like, "We worked so hard for your husband but, after he was elected. he let us down." I assume this was a reference to his coming up with DADT an getting Congress to pass it, and signing DOMA among other things. Her reply? "I thought we did very well."

That was it. The entire reply.

[sabrina 1]

71. A leader gets it right FROM THE BEGINNING. Had everyone joined Sanders 20 years earlier, so many

people whose Civil Rights were denied them, would not have had to suffer the loss of those rights for so long, many passing away (I know some in my own family) without ever having those rights and having live knowing that their leaders viewed them as not worthy of those rights.

A good leader doesn't need to 'evolve' on matters of equal rights. They simply know discrimination when they see it and they do what Sanders did, they STAND UP against it.

For people who are not asking for the most powerful position in this country it is great when they evolve. But anyone who is going to face other decisions as important and who, in that role, can effect the lives of many millions of people, it is NOT okay.

We need leaders who have the judgement and foresight to make the right decisions at the time they are faced with those decisions.

[hrmjustin]

5. As a gay man I am proud to support Hillary.

Marched with her in the pride parade and I proudly support her.

[Aerows]

8. As a lesbian, I proudly

support Bernie Sanders. If not him, then O'Malley.

I have my reasons for not putting my whole-hearted support behind Hillary Clinton, though I will unabashedly support her if she wins the primary.

There's room for all of us in the Democratic party.

[yuiyoshida]

14. I wish people would read it, instead of trashing it

Everyday we hear stuff we don't like, but that is what we NEED to hear...

[Aerows]

18. I agree

And there is room for all of us in the Democratic Party

[OKNancy]

21. LOL - I did... like the part you didn't post

[yuiyoshida]

25. Hello, I am only allowed to post 4 paragraphs

I posted less, so people would go read it.. You do know all articles have a four paragraph limit do you not? Its part of DU's rules.

[OKNancy]

27. yes, I've been here since 2001

been a moderator, etc... You posted two paragraphs. Additionally, you could have snipped.

Nevertheless, this is actually not a hit piece on Hillary. As the commentator said.. her past feelings should have no bearing on votes today and that she has always been a champion of gay rights.

[yuiyoshida]

30. I never snip...I let the article

Speak for itself. I didn't write it, I posted it as the author intended it.

[onenote]

75. Then why not post four paragraphs? Why not post one paragraph?

And why not mention that its an article from June 2014

[yuiyoshida]

93. The article appeared on Twitter...

I often look there for news source material. Its about Hillary, does it matter what year it is?

[Rex]

146. Wow. A DU VIP told you your article was acceptable, you should feel flattered!

Don't you love it when the VIPs allow you to exist here on DU? It is refreshing.

[merrily]

116. she has not always been a champion of equal marriage.

[hrmjustin]

24. And what do you want me to say? I am changing my vote to Sanders?

Never going to happen.

I am well aware that politicians I like evolved on this.

[yuiyoshida]

28. No I don't expect you will change your vote...

But I expect you to read up more about your candidate...and know her weaknesses as well as her strengths.

[hrmjustin]

40. I know abput her weaknesses.

Lord knows we hear about it every day here.

[yuiyoshida]

43. So hearing an ounce of truth

is a bad thing? You are an intelligent voter... Ultimately its up to you to go pull that handle to vote. Ultimately you have to weigh everything. Yes there are lies out there, but are you going to hold your hands over your ears and ignore the truth as well?

[hrmjustin]

45. I have heard all this before.

People evolve.

As a gay man I am happy they evolve.

[yuiyoshida]

47. I am too...and good for them

As A bi Asian Woman, I want to know someone has been in my corner for a long, long time. That is why I made my choice.

[hrmjustin]

48. Me too and since I marched with Hillary I know she is with us.

Take care.

[Ms. Toad]

65. I am not convinced it is evolution, as much as it is political expediency.

I welcome evolution - but I want someone who has principles and acts on them, rather than acting on them merely when the political winds finally say it is safe.

[MuseRider]

29. This is one of the best

and truest comments I have read in a while.

Blinders never elected anyone really good and they always cause massive disappointment.

Thank you. This little sentence should be an OP once a week.

[yuiyoshida]

32. No, thank you...

I didn't post this as flame bait, it was posted from a legitimate magazine from an author who seems to have not picked a side.

[MuseRider]

33. Either I misunderstood you

or you did me or I am just lost, 😉 could be any of those things.

Just to clarify, I did not see your post as flamebait. It makes perfect sense that we not trash threads that say things we don't want to hear, we NEED all the information, not just what we want to hear. Nothing gets worked out without challenge.

No real need to answer, I never thought what you said was flamebait, just a very simple and common sense piece of advice that should all heed.

***** I see, I was not responding to your OP but your comment above about trashing threads

[yuiyoshida]

37. What i was saying is that this article was not

posted to be flame bait, (As someone is quick to suggest down thread) it comes from a legitimate source, and I appreciate what you said, its the truth in regards to people not reading all the facts. Thanks again, however I know, with all the garbage being thrown around between people of each candidate, I simply could not ignore posting this.. I felt it had to be put out there.

[MuseRider]

38. Sometimes it is against us

sometimes it is against them. Learning is hard to do once you draw a line. Your posting was not flamebait, I see where we got twisted up. It is info that will make us learn if we listen and try to be open.

Keep going. We all must learn from each other.

[yuiyoshida]

39. In Japanese there is a phrase...

Gambarimasu! (do my best) ..or Ganbatte kudasai (please do your best) ... i try to each day.

[MuseRider]

42. Nice

[merrily]

117. Yes, you do. And you do very well.

Don't let any of this get you down.

Above all, don't take any of it personally. None of it is about you personally. I guaranty it.

[yuiyoshida]

154. oh but it is...

I have now been labeled a Hillary Hater. So, I am done with this.

[merrily]

157. We've ALL been labeled Hillary haters.

Apparently, unless you think someone should be POTUS, you hate them. who knew?

[Starry Messenger]

7. Who was the pro-same sex marriage candidate in 2008?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Who is the consistently pro-marriage equality candidate in 2016?

[Starry Messenger]

13. Was he running in 2008?

This line of rhetoric is stupid.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. He's running in 2016 and he has been consistent on the issue for decades.

[Starry Messenger]

17. Great. I hope he gets in his time machine and goes back to 2008.

That should fix everything.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. I'm not sure how that is even supposed to make sense.

Hillary is suddenly less inconsistent and triangulating because Bernie didn't run in 2008 even though he's petitioned for marriage equality for over 20 years?

[Starry Messenger]

26. She was the first to extend benefits for same-sex couples in the State Dept. in 2009

People who pay attention know what she's been working on. If Bernie felt strongly enough about this issue to run for President in 2008, he was free to run.

[Ms. Toad]

66. So if you don't run for president in a particular year,

your steadfast support for decades doesn't count?

[Starry Messenger]

70. I'm searching for Bernie's statements on the positions of the Dem candidates in 2008

vis a vis marriage equality. Did he criticize their positions? Rick Warren? Donnie McClurkin? Since we're bringing up 2008, the election of 2008 is the topic.

It's great he's a longtime ally. Did he stick his neck out on this on a national level that year?

[Ms. Toad]

74. Why? Does the article look at Clinton's position on what anyone else did?

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Or is it looking at her own positions & actions?

There is no magic "did you participate in XYZ discussion on a national level in a particular year" litmus test. That's not what is even being applied to Clinton, FWIW. I'm not, and neither is the article linked to, criticizing the other Dem candidates, failure to address Rick Warren, or Donnie McClurken. It is a long term review of her record over time in this arena, not who else she criticized, whether she did or did not run as a candidate for president in any particular year, and not just 2008.

Sanders' public record:

• Voted against Don't Ask Don't Tell (Jul 1993)
• Voted against Defense of Marriage Act (1996)
• Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
• Supported Vermont's civil union laws (2000)
• Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
• Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Co-sponsor ENDA (numerous version): prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
• Supported Vermont's same gender marriage law (2009)
• Voted to end DADT (2010)
• Co-Sponsor - Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
• Supports enforcement against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)
• Co-Sponsor – Respect for Marriage Act (replacing the marriage discrimination act with one which pro-actively assures respect for all marriages) (2015)

But what you seem to care about is whether he talked about other candidates or ran for president - not the bills he has co-sponsored, or the votes he has actually cast in the role he has been elected to perform.

[Starry Messenger]

82. You don't get to tell me what I care about.

Crappy tactics.

[Ms. Toad]

86. So I gave you a list of public national statements, on the record

because most of them are actually senate votes or sponsorship of bills, on a wide range of LGBT issues starting in 1993. Not only votes, but he was a sponsor of most of the bills affirming LGBT rights. But it's not good enough if he didn't criticize a Democrat's selection of guests at inauguration or a singer he used during the campaign, or run for president so he could speak in that particular forum. (I have no idea whether he did - but speaking merely to criticize other Dems does not seem to be his style)

If LGBT rights are one of your priorities, you might want to seriously consider whether it is more important to be actively working in congress, sponsoring and voting in favor of bills that advance LGBT rights - or sniping at fellow Dems. Because your comments here seem to suggest you believe the latter is more important.

[Starry Messenger]

87. Par for the course.

We're done here.

[Ms. Toad]

95. Meaning you actually do care more about whether he has talked about it, including by

slamming other politicians, than whether he has been substantively active for decades.

To each her own - and, now that you mention it, par for the course among those rationalizing Clinton's finger-to-the-wind positions.

[Starry Messenger]

96. Meaning, we are done here. Again.

Take the mind-reading act on the road, it will be big hit.

[Ms. Toad]

97. When the mind dumps onto the message board,

it isn't a "mind-reading act." It's just reading.

[passiveporcupine]

98. voting on an issue is sticking your neck out in politics

[merrily]

118. Yup. That should be self-evident.

BTW, who the hell was following any of Bernie Sanders speeches in 2008 and earlier? Do we really know what he has or has not said publicly about every issue?

[Shoulders of Giants]

10. Its because she's a politician.

Almost every successful politician of the past few decades is the same. They all lie or distort things, and have no problem throwing people under the bus for the "greater good." This is of the few things Republicans and Democrats are alike on. I couldn't sell out all gay people (who did nothing to me) just because that was politically convenient. Unfortunately that's what nearly every successful "mainstream" politician did before the polls on LGBT issues changed. Most politicians care more about getting reelected than doing what's right. That's why I would never run for public office.

[Juicy_Bellows]

22. This is the correct answer. nt.

[merrily]

119. And, the "greater good" so often seems to coincide with what they think might further their personal

objectives at any given time. So, you can't necessarily bank on it.

[sufrommich]

12. Secretary Clinton's Historic Speech on LGBT Human Rights - "Gay rights are human rights"

[merrily]

120. Great 2011 speech, but she didn't come out for equal marriage and marriage is a human right.

[OKNancy]

19. I always like to read the whole article, especially if I feel a poster may leave out important

commentary...

Doing so would seem to show inconsistency, yet there's a strong argument to be made that Clinton's anti-gay-marriage past shouldn't drive decisions to support or oppose her. No one doubts she will be a strong supporter of gay equality if elected president, now that all the political incentives to take that position are aligned. She has advanced gay rights other than marriage at times in her long career. And she has never come across in speeches or interviews as an anti-gay bigot. There is, however, a vocal segment of the left that is invested in likening people who opposed gay marriage to racists who opposed interracial marriage. There is also resentment from gays who feel that the Clintons wronged them in the past.

Andrew Sullivan's perspective is instructive: ---

[boston bean]

46. The author of this article is a conservative, who himself

doesn't hold progressive views on gay marriage.

hmmmmm... wonder what he might be trying to do?

[merrily]

122. That's why the link to the entire article is given.

If people don't click on a link and read the article--and I confess I don't all the time--that's on them. not on the person who posted the link.

[tularetom]

20. In other words, she wasn't a bigot, she just played one on TV

In fact, I don't believe she ever had strong feelings about gay marriage, pro or con. But she felt it was politically advantageous to pretend to oppose it until polls told her that a majority of Americans accepted it. Then she suddenly "evolved".

Many of her newly discovered "populist" views are going to come under the microscope in the next months. I don't think it will be pleasant for her.

[virtualobserver]

34. that is why I can't support her in the primaries....

I'll take "finger to the wind" Democrats over "Head up their ass" Republicans but not over an authentic person like "Bernie"



'

[merrily]

123. Problem with "finger in the wind:" you can't count on it. Winds change too capriciously.

If you are grounded in principle rather than personal ambition, you don't change without strong reasons. People can, for the most part, rely on what you say, if you are not saying it simply because, at that moment, it seems likely to help you attain your own objectives.

[randys1]

31. Recap, the two leading Dem candidates support Gay marriage, and NONE of the rightwing

vile pieces of human garbage do, unless I am missing something

[yardwork]

83. That's how I see this. I'm gay. Also this article is from 2014.

[Exilednight]

107. I agree with you. You're right that you're missing something.

[randys1]

108. What is it? Is Hillary not supporting Gay marriage? Bernie?

[Exilednight]

109. She's giving lip service. She has no intention to enact legislation.

[randys1]

110. Legislation? Which legislation are you talking about, and how do YOU know it is

lip service?

Hillary is a supporter of the LGBT community, plain and simple.

Try again

[Exilednight]

112. Exactly. What legislation has she promised?

[merrily]

126. Good question. What exactly has she promised so far in this campaign?

Apparently, she can be held only her most recent statements. That's what I'm gathering from what gets posted on this board. So, what has she flat out promised lately?

[Exilednight]

148. Her most recent statements? She has 20+ years of public life. She's running on her experience.

Her experience shows she has a habit of making promises and not keeping them.

[merrily]

152. So, essentially, she promised to run? I'll alert the media.

[Exilednight]

153. I'm asking what has her experience shown us on LGBT issues?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Aha

[Marr]

36. This is what drives me crazy about "centrists".

They use social issues their sole liberal bona fides, but they don't even lead on those. They just stake out a position a sliver to the left of the competition. There are no convictions, no leadership-- just polling data. Even on things like gay marriage, they're just along for the ride, like a tick on a dog.

And of course, they push right-wing economic and foreign policy while they do it.

[m-lekktor]

41. Lieberman was like that. nt

[Fumesucker]

94. A tick is a loathesome blood sucking parasite that injects infection and disease with its bite

On further reflection I see your point.

[boston bean]

44. Me thinks the author of this article is the one with a real problem regarding gay marriage:

Introducing Conor Friedersdorf and his views on gay marriage:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/

oh and this article too:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/why-gay-marriage-opponents-should-not-be-treated-like-racists/360446/

oh and his wiki page where you can see he defines himself as a conservative:

In an interview with journalist Matt Lewis, Friedersdorf stated that he has right-leaning views but that he does not consider himself to be a doctrinal conservative or a member of the conservative movement.[3]

Writing for The Atlantic, Friedersdorf laid out his argument for why he refused to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 and was supporting Gary Johnson in his bid for president as the Libertarian Party candidate.[4]

I really wish people would investigate before posting right wing bullpuckey.

[yuiyoshida]

49. Is all of the stuff published about

Hillary Clinton you don't like Right Wing Puckey? Cause it seems you just have to trash everything you don't like, like as if there is some kind of truth, is out there no one is hearing..and only you seem to be the one to understand it.

IF a Republican says the Sky is blue, does that make him wrong?

[boston bean]

50. I question the motive of a right leaning libertarian and therefor distrust

most everything he states.

Especially when such a person feels empathy for Memories Pizza.

So, I'll point out the bullpucky when I see it. That you don't think it is, is not my concern.

[yuiyoshida]

51. The author doesn't state he is promoting

Any one candidate and what Hillary once said regarding Gay marriage is true. If you deny that is true, than who is pushing the wrong narrative?

[boston bean]

52. Hillary is not a homophobe.

Regardless that some RW libertarian tries to convince you she is.

Especially some RW libertarian who feels bad for Memories Pizza..

[yuiyoshida]

54. NO ONE EVER SAID SHE WAS ...

Now these are your words. She did say that marriage was between a man and a woman. She stated that in 2000, when running against Barrack Obama. Yes she has evolved, but what she said was how she believed.

Again, if a Republican Right wing idiot says the sky is blue, are you going to call him a liar?

[boston bean]

55. She wasn't running against Barack Obama in 2000.

If a right wing libertarian told me the sky was blue, I would be looking for grey storm clouds.

That's about how much I agree with them on anything.

[yuiyoshida]

56. The truth is the truth is the truth

Even a broken clock is correct twice in a day.

[boston bean]

57. The truth is Hillary evolved, and that is a bad thing...

She is just some smarmy political candidate looking for votes...

That's what the article means and I presume what you believe as well.

I don't believe that.

[yuiyoshida]

58. She has evolved...

which is wonderful. The President has evolved, which has wonderful, ... as for me, I chose Bernie because he never had a doubt in his mind, that people who love each other, no matter the gender should be together. There are some here who don't trust someone who has changed their mind, and remember the crap we got about John Kerry being a "flip flopper". I don't want to have hear Republicans using that same terminology with who ever is the democratic candidate. (Someone who has yet been decided.)

And you presume wrong, I just felt it was important that everyone read that.. despite your characterization of the author. Again, if someone speaks the truth, and its based on what the candidate said, coming from their own mouth, I would want to know about it.

I think DU would want to know about it as well. The Atlantic Monthly is a legitimate magazine and not a right wing rag.

[boston bean]

59. Bernie Sanders should have run for president in 2008..

he should have done it 2000, he should have is 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984 etc...

Hell he's been round long enough to do so, no?

He was representing very liberal Vermont. If he was such an advocate, he should have run for president and changed the world back in 1980. .... When he could have done something way earlier. When's the last gay pride parade Bernie has marched in.. For real, can you tell me when that was?

He stayed safe in his senate seat where his stance on the issue was of no matter, just like his stance on guns is of no matter for his supporters in VT, but it is in many parts of the country.

[yuiyoshida]

60. Perhaps he should have run back then

But back then there was no Citizens United, and the Billionare class didn't try to own the government and run this country. I am glad he is running now.

And I won't try to covert you to Bernie, cause its not my place. I know you will not try to convert me to Hillary, but as others have said, if she wins the nomination I will support her. I just happened to believe I have made the right choice for me, and leave it at that.

There are many here who are undecided. I can't wait for the debates. It will be an exciting process and as we know, we are all Democrats here. We certainly have more to offer than those on the other side of the aisle.

[DURHAM D]

63. Perhaps you are unaware that the LGBT community has

evolved more than anyone. Before the majority of the community wanted marriage equality we spent more than a decade discussing domestic partnerships vs. marriage because the majority did not like the association with a religious ceremony.

Before that for decades and decades we were fighting to end discrimination in housing, employment and public accomodations. There was absolutely no discussion of marriage or any equivalent.

[Ms. Toad]

67. I disagree with your assessment of the LGBT community.

While there are those who reject marriage (and still do), the primary debate was the best strategy to get to marriage: whether it was best to support domestic partnerships (primarily as a means to an end) v. marriage.

Not to mention that marriages, and discussion of marriage, have been going on in the LGBT community for at least 3 decades. Discussions working toward my own marriage (which took place in my faith community in 1994) began almost 3 decades ago - and we were far from the first.

[DURHAM D]

69. of course you do

[Ms. Toad]

73. Nice snark.

I have a fair amount of experience within the LGBT community, both locally and nationally. When someone makes a statement purporting to describe LGBT community that differs from my own perception, there is no reason I should not share my perception. Which I did politely - and without snark.

It would be nice if you would extend the same courtesy.

[merrily]

125. His stance on the issue was of no matter in the US Congress? Hello? Have you seen his voting

record on this issue? HRC gave it a 100% rating.

Suddenly, no stance on any issue matters unless a centrist runs for President? And then what happens? We''re told they're not monarchs. it was all up to Congress.

[merrily]

124. Pointing out the bullpucky is great. Attacking the messenger instead of the message is different.

[Marr]

61. That's a great way to isolate yourself into an echo chamber.

Do you really do this as a matter of course? Just look up the writer and dismiss their arguments if they don't believe all the same things you believe?

That seems like a horrible way to live. That's what those right-wing loons who listen to talk radio do. They live in a world where they're always right, and never, ever have to think critically about any knee jerk position they take. It isn't healthy.

[boston bean]

62. what what what, did did did, you you say say say say say

I can't make a word out, as my echo chamber is preventing me from hearing your point... LOL.

But let me let you know something. I don't usually post articles written by right wing libertarians on DU. They usually aren't well accepted. But again, that's just me. And no, I don't usually give them the benefit of the doubt either... Why you might ask? Cause I don't agree with them on hardly one damned thing. I know that makes me different than some... but it is what it is.

[merrily]

127. It works beautifully if you have no desire whatever for the whole truth.

What is the likelihood of learning the down side of a Democratic politician from, for example, mediamatters?

It's like looking to the Official Kardashian Fan Club for the whole truth the Kardashians.

[Democat]

142. Then why not let Rush Limbaugh post on DU?

Anyone who points out that Rush is a right winger must be living in an echo chamber.

[Marr]

149. Because there's no ground at all between making DU a Rush Limbaugh fan site and

simply not dismissing articles and arguments out of hand because the person making them isn't in 100% agreement with you.

That's an absurd, slippery slope argument.

[Prism]

53. She's a nice enough friend to the community

But she'll never help us hide a body, and I think everyone is keenly aware of that.

Even my friends who support her know she isn't exactly our champion. It's only on DU that I see this reality-denying revisionism of how finger-in-the-wind she has always been towards us.

If there's no risk, she'll support our efforts. If there is, well, we ourselves have to create the environment that makes her comfortable enough.

Which is just exhausting. We just finished this with President Obama. Now we have to do it with her?

Ooft. No thank you.

[Ms. Toad]

68. +1000 n/t

[SidDithers]

72. Ha! I knew that would be Conor Freidersdorf, even before opening the link...nt

Sid

[NCTraveler]

76. A year old article from a conservative bigot....

being brought to du to attack someone who publicly supports and fights for equality and human rights. Fucking disgusting.

My question is, has your source Conor Freidersdorf evolved on the issue?

[yardwork]

84. As a gay person, I endorse this post.

[SidDithers]

90. Freidersdorf defended Ron Paul against the charges of racism in his infamous newsletters...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/

Do I think that Paul wrote the offending newsletters? I do not. Their style and racially bigoted philosophy is so starkly different from anything he has publicly espoused during his long career in public life -- and he is so forthright and uncensored in his pronouncements, even when they depart from mainstream or politically correct opinion -- that I'd wager substantially against his authorship if Las Vegas took such bets. Did I mention how bad some of the newsletters are? It's a level of bigotry that would be exceptionally difficult for a longtime public figure to hide.

He's a libertarian hack.

Remember when criticism of Democrats at DU had to be "constructive criticism"?

Now, any hit piece or smear from any source, no matter how right-wing, is the norm.

Sid

[merrily]

77. Thank you. Apparently nothing about the past 40 or so years matters, unless it matches her current

campaign rhetoric.

[brooklynite]

79. In other words, we should never have voted for Barack Obama...

[Grilled Charlie]

80. Hillary Corp

Drops or picks up whichever cause her shareholders are in favor of-

If she won office and her shareholders (Billionaires, banks, corporations, Wall Street etc) decided her support of "the gays &quot of which I am one) was no longer profitable, Suddenly Hillary would say "LGBT who?"

She's demonstrated that her only principle is the one that will get her elected. She is not a trustworthy person in my opinion.

[840high]

105. +1

[Romulox]

81. But Hillary is a MASTER of "the social"!!!11!~!!! How can this be?

I'd also like to insinuate Bernie is racist, as ridiculous as this claim is, in a lame attempt to deflect from Hillary's horrible record.

[Fumesucker]

85. I heard on NPR that Bernie is a dual citizen of Israel

And something about pole dancing boxes in his garage.

Concerned totebagger is double plus concerned.

[Romulox]

88. On behalf of "jewish persons", I would like to express my deep concern about Bernie!

/can't make this up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026880168

[Fumesucker]

91. The level of cognitive dissonance around here is amazing sometimes

If CD was physically painful this place would be a pill mill owner's dream.

I deliberately hadn't clicked on that one, now I see my suspicions were correct. There are days I think some of these posters are just fucking with us.

[merrily]

129. Does it really still amaze, though?

There are days I think some of these posters are just fucking with us.

OMG! Me, too! The days I log in being the days I think some of these posters are just fucking with us. Or with something.

[merrily]

131. Most of his father's family died in the Holocaust.

Which makes Sanders' failure to reach out to Jews particularly inexplicable. I am deeply ashamed to be supporting this kind of candidate.

As best I know, he's said nothing about spider monkeys yet. What could he possible have against them? They're adorable and innocent.

I don't think anyone that monstrous has ever run for POTUS before.

I am deeply ashamed to be supporting this man. Obviously, he's been evil since the days he risked his life working for SNCC and poor people in Chicago.

No words.

[merrily]

128. I want to chime in on the smears.

[AgingAmerican]

89. She has finally 'evolved' into Bernies position

nt

[Oilwellian]

92. Excellent video

I found it interesting that all of the students immediately thought it was a conservative quote, and they were quite savvy about "finger in the wind" politicians.

Bernie's long record on gay rights is there for all to see and he has always supported their efforts, even when it was unpopular. A true mark of a good leader.

[madfloridian]

99. Well, in her own words....

[dsc]

100. the following bears pointing out

The author actually is lying or doesn't know why Mozillia's CEO lost his job. It was by no means just because of a donation to Prop 8, bad as that was, it was also because he had given large sums to Pat Buchanan when he ran for President. Also, it should be noted that Hilary never opposed marriage equality at the state level. Nor did she advocate ending marriages that were already in existence both of which Prop 8 did.

[merrily]

130. What a candidate never said counts now? Bernie never said X, so that must mean Bernie is against X.

Hillary never said X, so that must mean Hillary always supported X.

Until DOMA, marriage, divorce, adoption, etc. had been considered exclusively state matters for CENTURIES. So silently not opposing state rule on marriage was not exactly a bold stance. She took ownership of her husband's GLBTQ policies during her 2008 primary campaign.

[dsc]

150. actually she opposed prop 8

but I was also pointing out that the author either lied or was misinformed about why Mozilla's ceo was forced out. His donations to Buchanan were also involved in that and the author pretended they didn't exist.

[merrily]

151. Yes, I got that about Mozilla's CEO. Thanks.

[tularetom]

101. + a brazillion

Illegitimi non carborundum!

[McCamy Taylor]

104. Obama was against it--and look where he is now.

Efforts to strip Clinton of her LGBT support are wasted.

[merrily]

121. Obama was for it long before he was against it, then for it again.

[DanTex]

111. Wow, a video from Brent Bozell's Media Research Center! Right here on DU!

But, of course, it's obviously a myth that the right-wing is trying to bait the far left to attack Democrats. They would never fall for something like that...

[merrily]

132. Asked and answered.

[DanTex]

134. It wasn't a question. Just an observation about where the Hillary hate originates.

[merrily]

135. Yes I know. "Asked and answered" is a figure of speech, not to be taken so literally all the

time. Point is, the issue has been covered upthread.

[DanTex]

136. Of course it hasn't been covered. If it had, there would be any more right-wing propaganda

being posted on DU. Are you really OK with videos from MRC on a progressive message board?

[merrily]

137. The topic of the source HAD been covered upthread.

My own position on the knee jerk "kill the messenger" posts is that I am so over them. If the info is wrong, refute it. If the info is correct, pointing out it came from a Libertarian is meaningless.

[DanTex]

138. No it hadn't. I was talking about the video, which came from Media Research Center.

I wasn't aware that the author of the article is also a right-winger. But now that you point it out, that makes the OP even worse. Two distinct right-wing sources to attack a Democratic candidate. This is how low the Hillary-haters are stooping.

Next thing you know somebody will be posting Glenn Beck videos. And of course, the "progressives" will be screaming "don't shoot the messenger, Glenn Beck is making a good point!!!!"

[merrily]

139. No, calling those who support Bernie Hillary haters is how low others are stooping.

[DanTex]

140. I'm calling people who post links to hate websites like MRC "haters".

Do you have a better word? Can you think of another reason someone would link to one of the filthiest right-wing sites on the internet?

[merrily]

141. After how the bs on this thread affected the OP, I have no decent words right now for those who

bashed her over a fucking source.

However, I stand by my prior posts about source. If the material was so awful and wrong, someone should have been able to provide a drop dead rebuttal. No one on this thread did. The article was not even that bad, as some of Hillary's supporters who actually read it pointed out. Have you read the article and thread?

BTW, the Op of this thread is a gentle soul and far from a hater of anyone, as any regular readers of her posts with a scintilla of insight can plainly see.

[DanTex]

143. "A fucking source" is the fucking Media Research Center. Do you know what that is?

So you're OK with posting all sorts of right-wing propaganda now? Is there any limit?

Obviously, there isn't, because the MRC is about as far right as you can get. If there was any kind of limit to the right-wing sewers that you were willing to dive in order to find dirt on Hillary, than MRC would be on the other side of it.

[merrily]

144. Here's what I know. Hillary most likely doesn't read here. Sticks and stones may break her bones,

but nothing posted here is going to make her cry. There is a contingent on DU who feels its some kind of heinous crime to post something about a political candidate who doesn't read here and should have a thick skin anyway, but perfectly fine to insult a fellow DUer who will see their insults. My view is the direct opposite of that. I am not saying I am perfect in that because I can lose it. But I do try not to make it a habit unless someone comes at me first.

I've told you the OP is a gentle soul who was deeply affected by the responses on this thread and your reply was to pile on and imply she purposely dove into a sewer. Again, I have no decent words for that.

Where's your great rebuttal to this alleged disinfo anyway? And again, did you even read the article or the thread? Since you are ignoring the content of what I post to you in order to pile on about the source the OP chose after all I've said about how deeply the OP was affected, I see no reason for me to reply to you again. If you can't respond to the content of my posts to you, talk to yourself.

[DanTex]

147. There is a contingent of DU that thinks any attack on Bernie is heresy, that's true.

But that has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate to post links to the effing Media Research Center on DU.

I don't think the OP purposely dove into the sewer, my guess is that she was googling for anti-Hillary stuff, and stumbled upon the sewer, and didn't bother to check just what she was posting. Which means that the correct thing to do now is either self-delete or at least get rid of the right-wing-propaganda video that accompanies the article.

BTW, that video is not part of the Atlantic article. It's a separate right-wing hit piece on Hillary.

My "great rebuttal"? I don't need one. Everyone knows that Hillary has changed her position on gay marriage. This is not news. The question is whether one believes, as the Media Research Center does, that this makes her a shifty and insincere human, or whether she actually just evolved along with millions of other Americans that are now fully embracing LGBT rights even though they may not have at times in the past.

You'll notice that the people writing these hit pieces aren't LGBT activists. On the contrary, they are people who are anti-gay, and they want to damage Hillary in order to forward their bigoted agenda (to be clear, I don't mean the OP, I mean the sources she links to). That is the problem.