Nothing to see here.....

10 years means nothing.

she does so with such passion and conviction. For those who will inevitably rush to her defense, I have this to say: She didn't "evolve" on marriage equality until late 2013 when it had become politically safe. She FOLLOWED public opinion and she was in a great position to lead on this issue as the most admired woman in the country.

Hell no, that's not leadership. It's yet another example of what her priority is: Her ambition to become President is far more important than the people she purports to champion.

If you actually canvass in these neighborhoods please invite me to come with you.


Thank you in advance.

But I didn't MAKE her say those things... things that I would never say and no strong advocate of LGTB would say.

Explain it away yourself, I'm not trying to convince you.

But it makes no sense. Either she way lying and just doing the politically expedient thing then (is that what you think?) or she is doing that now.

Either choice isn't so great.

that speech was littered with bigoted statements and claims.

She's lucky that Bernie doesn't use attack ads or attack her on things like this.

"I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position."

Wow.

And how could Hillary, such a long time supporter of LGBT rights deal with that? I find it...hard to swallow.

she was praying with The Family? She certainly looks and sounds like one of their minions in this video. Good find! Shine light on that truth!

Can't understand why this isn't getting more attention.

It is 2004, not 1974 or 1984.

Shit, Sanders writing from the 60's got more attention.

This is such a clear example, not only of her lack of leadership, but of her political maneuvering and opportunism, and it depicts an absense of core beliefs on these issues.

The perspective of gay individuals.

"Same-sex unions should be recognized and same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets"-Hillary Clinton 1999

"I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont"-Hillary Clinton 2000

"I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."-Hillary Clinton 2000

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

What you say is contradicted by this video. Or rather, granting the truth of everything that you say and what the video records, there's a contradiction.

Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to endorse the anti gay measures in various states in 2004 as a way to help him get elected.

It reminds me of the go-to reasoning for promoting DLC/Third-Way candidates in supposedly "red states", because anything less than a Republican wouldn't make it. Then giving those politicians control.

Oh, I could just say a humdinger of an image of what I see, except I don't want to be PPR'ed.

but own it don't deny it

But 95% of politicians aren't. Bernie is a very rare breath of fresh air in that he wouldn't recognize a political weather vane if you handed one to him. I'm strongly backing Bernie in the primaries, but what Hillary said about gay marriage in 2004 does not overly concern me, just like what Barack Obama said in those days doesn't either. On social issues like these I trust them both to come down on the correct side now.

What does "concern" you?

An inability to make sound tactical judgements. In our political system, after every push meets every shove, we are essentially given a choice between two individuals running for President with two massive power structure coalitions propelling their final campaigns. We can turn both aside out and throw our support elsewhere, either to make a statement or build toward a different set of potentially winning coalition choices in the non immediate future. We can just sit it out or we can give support to one of the current mega political coalitions WHILE building toward different future choices. Those essentially are our choices come November 2016.

If Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic candidate for President by then I will not have an opportunity to vote for a winning candidate for President that I believe in whole heartedly - but I will still vote and I would rather that the person I then vote for win rather than lose. There is a very good chance that person may well be Hillary Clinton. I have no doubt that she would be a much better president on LGBT issues than whoever the Republicans run if that time comes. It would surprise and concern me if you disagreed.

I'm not being petty--I simply don't know. I don't recall many Senators who took a positive stand on marriage equality, but I could easily be wrong.

Further, I know that Bernie Sanders is all things for all people, and through him all things are possible, but the actaul question was this:

Either she flat out believed that shit or she was a sickeningly calculating --umm, what's the politically correct word for a person that sells their body and soul? -- aiming simply for political gain.

So which was it?

Religious moonbat or nauseating political sellout?

But I don't get it?
JaneyVee explains that HRC has been progressive all these years.
How can HRC be two things?

She's for it until it stops being the popular position. Then, she's been against it her whole life.

Just like Iraq - She was really against it, but voted for it because she was tricked into it.

Wow.

Another godly politician trying to ram their religion down everyone's throat.

...who don't hang out here or on other political blogs. Let me know how it works for you.

So was she a religious moonbat then or a cynical, manipulative, uncaring liar?

If I were gay and saw this, I am not sure I would be able to stop vomiting when I contemplated voting for her.

I lived in Fort Lauderdale and now in Los angeles. I would recommend you pay attention to the precincts in Wilton Manors in Fort Lauderdale and the precincts in Silver Lake and West Hollywood in Los Angeles when the CA and FL primaries come.

She is hugely popular,,, I am sure some people will demur from my assessment but that's why people actually vote.

is death with.

she is very popular among racial minority communities and the lgbt community and immigrants .

i saw this when i was supporting Obama in 2008 .

She has worked assiduously to court these groups by reaching out to them, speaking specifically and often to their needs, and filling her staff with members from those groups.

I have no animus toward Senator Sanders... I think the internecine warfare between the HRC and Sanders folks ends in nowhere... I do think they have fundamentally different approach to politics.

Sure all the heteros say they evolve, but those attitudes don't die easy. Racism doesn't die easy. I don't know what is in Hillary's heart, but it's insulting to hear people say that the LGBT community should grovel in thankfulness that Democrats have evolved.

People want to pretend they were always loving and supporting, but I remember how many of the "allies" were calling me slurs and pushing our community around only a decade ago.

I don't trust straight people, unless and until they prove they are truly open to accepting LGBT people for who we are.

because they saw during the 90s that the Clintons did try to advance many rights and were held back by the right wing and even the country as a whole which was much more anti gay back then.

gay rights isn't just same sex marriage. there were so many other things which was very tough and always fought by bigots.

just getting an openly gay man appointed to a small country was tough to do .

and all through this the right wing attacks included attacks on Hillary for being a woman and claiming she was lesbian and ridiculing her for it .

LBJ made some offensive comments but would you really need to know why black people liked him ?

there were some advances in gay rights and more acceptance of gays during the Clinton administration. if a Dem could have remained in office i think we would be a bit further along.

sadly Bush set things back for many. but under obama things have against started to move forward.

http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/ac399.html

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

Bill Clinton's statement:
"Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society."

the polling has told her that it is okay to.

To be fair, she is hardly the only Democrat to follow this path; our current President had much the same trajectory.

But we should call it what it is, political calculation --- not "evolution", because the fundamental moral rightness of equality was exactly the same in 2004 as it is now. And Hillary Clinton was the same compassionate, morally astute, smart human that she is now. I have no doubt, again, that internally she had figured it out.

The only differences between 2004 and today were the poll numbers, and Karl Rove using the "threat" of Gay Marriage and already-outdated noise about all powerful "values voters" as a club with which to scare our candidates into reprehensible crap like we see here.

She's on the right page now, and that's good, but it's not a profile in courage. A true profile in courage would have been doing the right thing back then.

Thanks for the reminder.

On this..

on trade...

on Iraq...

On whatever she wants. She is Hillary and that is that.

I think what evolved was their calculation for the most politically convenient position.

and I would love it if he came out publicly in opposition to it.

One of the ways that seems increasingly important (and desirable) to me is

A) Those that have private thoughts but bow to outside pressure (whether that be desire to be liked or political expediency, etc.)

B) Those why make a point of NOT having the divide mentioned in A above. It requires a whole different type of person and often means sacrificing your ambition, because you have to say and do sometimes unpopular things.