2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI hate the word "evolved"
It suggests change, growth, the idea that a person thought one way and then learned to think another.
Many politicians don't often evolve.
They do chameleon super well, though.
Clinton chameleon'd. A ton. Notably, on gay marriage.
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton the person thought about my family. From various biographies and notes, it seems she wasn't entirely thrilled with us for much of her career. But she tolerated us, went to events, and did the absolute bare minimum in accordance with the Democratic zeitgeist.
But the idea, "Well, she evolved!"
Does anyone, honestly, earnestly believe Clinton didn't know what she was saying when she spoke out against LGBT families? Did she earnestly, honestly just not know any better? Did she, until 2013, not have any LGBT friends, family, or co-workers in her life that led her to believe that her views about marriage were anachronistic and harmful?
What was the magical moment? What was the spark that lit, "Wait! I've been wrong this whole time! My friend Phil wanted to get married, and I thought, 'I've been wrong my whole life!'"
That moment is never mentioned. Never asked after. Never referred to.
Instead, we get, "evolved."
As in, "Now that it's politically advantageous, it's all cool. Sorry I fucked you and your family for several decades!"
Evolved. Ugh.
Fuck. Off. with that shit. Did you evolve my family, our suffering, our discrimination, and our inequality? Just, no bad! Is ok. We're fine now!
Newp. Not ok. Not with her. Not ever.
The only reason I'm cool with President Obama on this is because he "evolved" during a re-election campaign. That required risk. He put himself out there. I appreciate that.
Hillary? Newp newp newp. She's cool because now it's ok. Way after the fact. As her entire presidency would be. Who on earth believes this woman? Honestly. It baffles.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The success of grassroots movements is more often than not seen in the evolution of society during said movement. It is what grassroots movements are about in large. Evolution toward a better society.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Like reading the back of a cereal box. A nice sentiment, but it breaks down if you put any thought to it whatsoever.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is a major point of grassroots movements. To change opinion for the better in society. Society evolves.
True underpinning of any great grassroots movement. To get those not on board to evolve to a better position.
Svafa
(594 posts)had to "evolve" on issues like lgbtq+ rights or disastrous wars when they could vote for someone who was on the right side of history all along?
senz
(11,945 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)All good by me. Preach it senz.
senz
(11,945 posts)in a presidential candidate.
Bet that sounds quaint.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,222 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,222 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Candidate A simply triangulates while Candidate B really did evolve. From primary to primary since 1984, the variables never change, merely the bias behind A or B.
But this time it's different! A change is coming! A revolution! Another bumper-sticker!
TM99
(8,352 posts)Well said, and I agree with all of it.
It baffles me as well, and I simply can not trust someone like this. After decades of this type of behavior, there are no benefits of a doubt left for me.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)They're both appalling euphemisms.
The former means "publicly changed his/her position primarily out of political expediency." It has nothing to do with learning or making progress, unless of course you include cynical calculation under those categories.
The latter simply means "lied."
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)When she was against gay marriage it was because there were more votes there. When public opinion had swung far enough, Hillary flipped on the issue.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Myself, and all of my friends like me have seen through that charade. Matter of fact, I think I've pointed out her chameleon-like nature before.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)It doesn't strike me as an admirable quality for a leader because evolving is a camouflage word that simply means running with the pack.
"I changed my mind about it." They can't just come out and say that for some reason. All they can say is, "I evolved." As if that magic word will explain it away without further examination.
It is an interesting topic to think about, evolving, in the political sense. Thanks for bringing it up.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I'd guaran-goddamn-tee you it'd be spinning fast enough to power all of New York for a year with how often Hillary has abused the word "evolve".
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Same gender marriages? Now that is just ridiculous. That is going way too far. Because....
Well ... I can't think of anything.
In fact, the more I think about it, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.
Yes, absofuckinglutely they should be allowed to be married. There isn't one damned good reason why not and plenty of good reasons they should be allowed.
So one can evolve. Of course, it took me longer to write the above than it took me to evolve. From proposal to support took about 10 to 15 seconds. Thinking about it for more than a few minutes without coming to support it requires bigotry.
Or, in the case of a politician, prioritizing your electability ahead of people's fundamental rights.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)and honestly this could change my mind.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Clintons decidedly non-inclusive language might be forgivable if she had a sterling track record on LGBT rights. She doesnt. Clinton only came out for marriage equality in 2013, in what the Economist dubbed a farcically late conversion. Even then, she seemed to endorse the Dick Cheney position that states should be allowed to decide whether or not to deprive gay people of their fundamental right to wed. A painful interview with NPRs Terry Gross only aggravated matters, as Clinton tried to claim that a federal gay marriage ban somehow granted states the right to recognize same-sex unions. (The act, signed into law by her husband, actually impeded states efforts to legalize gay marriage, which the Supreme Court recognized when striking it down.)
Since then, Clinton has polished her LGBT messagebut not to everyones satisfaction. Many of her gay donors are frustrated with her perceived lack of enthusiasm about LGBT rights. She supported the Supreme Courts marriage equality rulingbut declined to explain why she suddenly believes marriage is a constitutional right and not an issue for the states. In July, Clinton endorsed the federal Equality Act, a sweeping LGBT nondiscrimination law. But then, in September, the Washington Free Beacon published a damning story alleging that, in 2000, then-President Bill Clinton questioned his wifes commitment to gay rights. (Hillary, Bill reportedly told the historian Taylor Branch, found gay rights harder to swallow and experienced discomfort around gay people who were kind of acting out.)
Prism
(5,815 posts)For sparing me the search.
She doesn't particularly like us. And the history is there for all to read.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)When pressed they supported straight marriage, because that was thought to be the only way to get votes. I didn't find Obama's 'evolution' all that brave, given how recent it was. I agree she wasn't brave either, but my moms remember going to a (Bill) Clinton rally in SF back in the 90s, and felt that there was a lot of support from the Clinton's at that time. Heck, one of my moms had to be in the closet at work until 1998 because she was afraid she would lose her job if she came out. It is important to look at the historical period. Just as with the repubs and their "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" support of certain ideas, the Democrats have done the same thing with some of our issues.
I don't know Bernie's record on this, but I'm guessing since you brought it up, it must be better. I would say that he had a lot less to lose than a sitting First Lady, and in fact likely had very few people even notice or care.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)who was pushing for marriage equality in 1985 when it was political suicide to do so. That's who he is -- unafraid to do the right thing.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)If there was a groundswell against LGBT rights tomorrow, Clinton would be at the head of the charge to slam them again.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)I personally evolved on the issue of gay marriage. I had nothing to politically gain from my personal evolution. The more I learned through the national debate, the more my opinion evolved. Those that act like they've had everything right from the get go are just deceiving themselves. Social evolution is antithetical to the Republican Party not the Democratic Party.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)other people, you apparently have limited contact with LGBT people in actual life. That's not appealing to me in a candidate, be that candidate you or the one you are here to promote.
Also, I am not pleased that this Party is still demanding we deal with those who exploited us like fodder for their advancement. She supported bigoted ideas and if they were toward any other minority group you would not accept her, that says the Party is not really with LGBT. Thinks it is doing us favors.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Please, spare me the sanctimonious act. Polls have shown the changing opinions with regards to gay marriage over the past decade. I don't need to justify my changing positions to you or anyone else. There isn't anyone alive whose views haven't changed on numerous issues from young adulthood. That's just human nature. You included.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)It's "return"!!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Evolution is driven by the adapting needs of the organism in the environment. Hillary has a strong need to become president so she changes positions constantly to adapt to the changing polls.