Working for McGovern doesn't outweigh helping build the DLC.

Now that I have, are you still as outraged? Everything else is important, and building the DLC means it doesn't matter if she was liberal in 1972.

and outlandish claims

And, while you're at it, explain how the Violence Against Women Act did nothing for women.

We didn't have to elect a guy who flies home to watch blacks get executed to get that.

during Bill Clinton's Presidency benefited women. You stated this emphatically and in absolute terms.

So, what's up with that?

that has nothing to do with what the person under discussion is like now, since nothing from the views she'd basically abandoned by 1976 or so survives in her now.

This has been debunked repeatedly.

It was bad satire in SUPPORT of the breakdown of rigid gender roles.

All I see from SOME Hillary supporters are personal attacks on Bernie Sanders, super lame ones at that. Seth Myers put that stupid attempt to smear him to rest with the American people who gave it all the attention it deserved, a good laugh.

But why are you not talking about your canidate's positions on the issues?

The beauty of having a candidate who so excellent on the issues, like the TPP right now eg, is that I can talk about THAT, and like him, not ever need to personally attack other candidates. Don't you see that it only harms your candidate when you try to distract from the real issues by making threats like that 'It will not be forgotten'. What does that mean or have to do with ANYTHING that the voters care about?

They had to dig really deep to try to find something ANYTHING to avoid talking about issues with Bernie, and then they tried to spin a decades old sentence, how silly, really, the kind of thing the people are SICK TO DEATH OF, Bernie eg, STICKS TO THE ISSUES and has NEVER had to sink to that level, yet has been winning by overwhelming majorities for decades.

You should take a lesson from that. You're not representing YOUR candidate very well when you make silly, childish threats like that.

His record on women is so excellent that to try a Rovian attack on it, will only affect YOUR candidate.

Much as JFK was a member of the America First Committee when he was student at Harvard.

Your analogy would only work if HRC had an equivalent to a "PT 109" experience at some point in her life.

that is how they are trained in some sense (and yes, I know some of you will scream but I ask you to prove whatever it is you are trying to prove).

Smear is all they got. It won't work because Bernie is the genuine article and people know when they're being shammed.

As the nation boiled over Vietnam, civil rights and the slayings of two charismatic leaders, Ms. Rodham was completing a sweeping intellectual, political and stylistic shift. She came to Wellesley as an 18-year-old Republican, a copy of Barry Goldwater’s right-wing treatise, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” on the shelf of her freshman dorm room. She would leave as an antiwar Democrat whose public rebuke of a Republican senator in a graduation speech won her notice in Life magazine as a voice for her generation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=0


Hillary Clinton's commitment to civil rights
from September 20, 2014:

On a subfreezing morning in January 2003, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) walked to the pulpit of Trinity Baptist Church's Martin Luther King Day celebration in the Bronx to make a startlingly rousing speech to their predominantly African-American congregation. Typically, such speeches are principally aspirational — they acknowledge that society has largely rebuked racial discrimination's ugly past but urge steadfastness in tackling challenges that lay ahead. But it was Clinton's stirring repudiation of Trent Lott, then the Republican Senate Majority Leader from Mississippi who a month earlier praised Strom Thurman's 1948 pro-segregation presidential campaign, that enthused the audience. Her remarks suggested changes in leadership alone will not eradicate racism and discrimination but the rigidity of the pathways to political and economic enfranchisement must acquiesce to the strength inherent in this country's diversity...

While in the Senate, she introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2007 to combat a "history of intimidation." Fighting against voter ID laws, Clinton said that "By trying to require not just photo identification but proof of citizenship — proof that thousands of American citizens can't produce through no fault of their own — cynical Republican lawmakers are trying to build new walls between hundreds of thousands of eligible senior, minority, and low-income Americans and their civil right to choose their own leaders. Republicans claim that these requirements are needed to prevent fraud, but the reality is that they do little more than disenfranchise eligible voters."

In an interesting juxtaposition with Trent Lott's incendiary comments, Clinton, a few months earlier, stood with the widow of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall at a podium alongside former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, who was being sworn in as the first African-American President of the American Bar Association in its 124-year history – 60 years after they lifted a ban on black members. Her appearance this week at the Legal Services Corporation and her board chairmanship of that organization in the early 1970s reaffirmed a longstanding commitment to support low-income communities and people of color in the courtroom and at the highest levels of legal advocacy.

Back in 2007, speaking of the Jena 6 in Louisiana, Clinton said, "I am deeply concerned about reports of potentially disparate treatment of white youths and African-American youths in the criminal justice system. ... And I have long been troubled by a history of disparate treatment of African Americans in our criminal justice system." And regarding the unrest in Ferguson, Mo., her remarks to a mostly white audience were considered some of the most substantive: "Imagine what we would feel, what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers..."

Whether pushing for race to be considered in higher education admissions policies or fighting against the use of race-neutral "percentage plans" in federal affirmative action proposals, there are aspects to Hillary Clinton's activism that exist across multiple policy and political venues as well as at the community level...

more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026744022

And I know it is correct. But so is the OP.

The idea that she is pro -equality, especially when it comes to the LGBT community, is nothing but lip service. And really recent.

...if for no other reason than a community of individuals feels slighted by her positions and actions.

I don't believe the op is correct, though.

goes back at least to her years as First Lady, when she began. marching in Pride parades. Your statement is blatantly false.

Marching in a parade doesn't mean shit.

There has always been more to LGBT civil rights that marriage equality, and Hillary has been with us for a couple decades.

Marching in a parade, being visible, speaking out on behalf of our rights as SOS, has done a lot more for us than authoring some obscure piece of failed legislation.

personally. Hell, when I met her back then she was more gay affirming than I was of myself as I was just a newly minted lesbian.

What legislation did she support or introduce that furthered equality? You know as well as I do that many politicians walked in the Pride parades and they did nothing for us.

She didn't come out against DADT or DOMA until very late in the game. DOMA was 2011. None of it until this young century. In 2004 she was on the same level as Cheney on equal rights for us.

Marriage equality may not be the be all and end all but it's damn close. And 2013 is too late for me when it comes to supporting it. I don't buy it. Every time she does something like this, it coincides with campaigns.

For a fight that's been going on for decades, where some politicians have always supported equality, I don't support someone that is so often changing her mind, in many areas, to fit with her constituents. It's too damn convenient

because it's obvious you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

And you are right. She still supported the states deciding on what they want marriage to be in June of 2014.

If not for DOMA, there would have been an amendment to the federal Constitution outlawing equal marriage. Getting rid of it would have taken yet another Constitutional amendment, which would have had to be ratified state by state--ie., not ratified at all.

So yes, DOMA was the lesser evil at the time. If SCOTUS makes a 14th. Amendment ruling for equal marriage later this week, it will have proven to be the far, far lesser of two evils.

DOMA passed in 1996. The amendment, 10 years later, never had a prayer.

What does the SCOTUS decision have to do with this? I am well aware of what is being decided. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

doesn't mean shit! What a joke.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128012783

Well marym attending a speech 50 years ago means squat to POC. Yet you critisize Hillary.

but this is revisionist history.

Clinton did not march in Pride parades in the 1990's. She was a firm supporter of Bill's DADT and DOMA.

She began to march in the early 2000's and yet at the same time she was giving speeches as recently as 2004 defining marriage as a sacred act between a man and a woman.

She attended the Log Cabin forum in 2007, and finally publicly came out strongly for gay marriage in 2013.

It is fine if you wish to forgive, forget, and support her now, but it is not ok to distort historical facts to do so.

that there has always been more to LGBT civil rights than marriage equality. I don't think anyone expected even 15 years ago that we would be sitting on the edges of our chairs till Thursday anticipating a SCOTUS ruling that will make it legal in all 50 states. I didn't expect to see it in my lifetime.

ALL the major liberal pols have "evolved" on the issue. (No, Sanders has never been a major figure.). So have the mainstream churches and the American people as a whole. That's an excellent thing, in my view. The people I worry about are those who are so inflexible that they never change. There are a dozen or so of that ilk running for the Republican nomination right now, and every one of them is barking mad.

DADT was the best compromise Bill Clinton could get out of Senator Sam Nunn and the Joint Chiefs on his proposal to allow LGBT's to serve openly in the military. It eased a little of the pressure on gay soldiers. It wasn't some terrible new oppression visited on LGBT's, as some people seem to think.

DOMA was also a compromise, to prevent an anti-equal marriage amendment to the Constitution. If that had happened, it would have required yet another amendment to nullify it, a far harder path than equal marriage has had through the courts.

There is some real history for you. Deal with it as you will.

The funny thing is that the LGBT community evolved very slowly on marriage equality. We were fighting for housing and employment discrimination more than marriage for almost the entire (last half) of the 20th century. Then we spent years and years arguing about what to call it - marriage or domestic partnerships. I know people to this day who still don't like that it is called marriage.

the idea because marriage was "a straight thing.". Job and housing security were paramount, as was access to medical care during the worst years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

There's a lot of our history that is simply unknown outside our community, even to those who support us.

History unknown outside of the community and many younger members of the community.

I grew up with a lesbian aunt, a lesbian sister, and a gay godfather.

I watched my aunt get booted out of the Navy because of DADT. I saw several more during my time in the army during the 1990's.

My sister has been in a committed long term relationship since the mid 1990's and thanks to DOMA is only now going to get the chance to marry and have full legal and economic rights that thus far she and her partner have not had. Her soon to be wife has MS and my sister has not been able to make one legal decision for her because of the bigotry in this country.

And my godfather died when I was 14 of AIDS.

To dismiss Sanders as not being a major political figure is dishonest.

Like I said, I am very glad many have evolved. Some of us, including Sanders, didn't need to do so.

I do not accept and won't that DADT or DOMA were 'compromises' that the Clinton's had to go along with.

If it were not for the relative ease of taking DOMA down through the courts, your sister and sister-in-law probably would not be planning to marry now, and nearly 400,000 other marriages would not have been possible.

Sorry, but Sanders has not been a major figure until the last few months.

I do not want to get into a bitter exchange with you. I am stepping out of this dialogue now.

so I will not get into with you either.

The last I will say is that unfortunately since the Clinton's sold themselves as a pair in the 1980's and 1990's and she is on record publicly supporting Bill's positions, these compromises are indeed as much hers as they are his.

Problem is, ever since then, "working within the system" has meant watering the program down to nothing(or settling for trivial increments, which are the same thing as nothing), deferring to the establishment, and reserving politics for "insiders", with ordinary people having no meaningful role to play and in fact no role other than writing letters to politicians(an activity that no politician is ever impressed or moved into action by)or writing checks(which most people can't afford to do.)

Her political tactics are elitist and ultimately useless for anyone bit millionaires. LGBTQ people, poc, workers, the jobless, immigrants-none of those groups can ever hope to have a say in "policy discussions" on Capitol Hill and (other than in aSanders presidency)at the White House.

Your post is overstated, exaggerated, and mostly fact-free. But, it will get lots of recs.

Never have.

probably given to her by her Republican father.

Unlike Bernie, who was born into a progressive family, she was raised by conservative parents, but she rejected this philosophy when she grew up.

....as though they themselves had not changed or matured in any way since they were 16. When I've challenged some on this issue, they have asserted that they were born into "progressive" families and never had to learn or mature past that.

Amazing admission, when you think of it. Kind of like an ideological immaculate conception and virgin birth for them, while HRC was clearly conceived in sin and the baptism has not worked for her.

Heads might explode.

....a bodice-ripper for Harlem Classics or that she's the pseudonymous author of 50 Shades? Mercy.

It's pretty inappropriate, too.

I doubt the GOP would take that attitude if he became a top tier candidate. One article that handles the topic fairly gently: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

....his existence, so to speak. Once the GOP takes notice of him, they'll attempt to destroy him as viciously as they have attempted to destroy the Clintons and John Kerry and Obama and everyone else worthwhile.

As long as Bernie's alleged fans here pretend he is as pure as the driven snow and HRC is the Bitch from Hell, it does none of us any good at all. They are both human beings with human failings, just as they are both decent Democrats (or, in Bernie's case, a good Independent who caucuses with the Dems). Pretending otherwise hurts them both, and hurts the goal of electing a Democrat.

Clinton has endured more OPPO research than one could shake a stick at, while BS is only just starting to experience that feeling. I wonder how many of his old friends have called him, saying "Someone came around my house asking questions about you...." because I'll bet the RNC is already on the case, just in case something unlikely happens. They're probably doing the same for O'Malley as well. I don't know if they'll waste their time on Chaffee, they already know much of his dirt, he used to be one of them, and he doesn't seem to be getting much traction.

___As a former first lady aiming to become America’s first female president, Hillary Clinton has a biography heavy with male influences, including Hugh Rodham, the stern father who raised her as a Republican; Don Jones, the Methodist youth minister who introduced her to the civil rights movement, and former president Bill Clinton, her political and personal partner for more than three decades.

But perhaps more than anyone, it was Alan Schechter, a political science professor who mentored Clinton during her student years at Wellesley College, who had a ringside seat to her intellectual and political transformation amid the turbulent 1960s. A self-described “FDR progressive” raised in Brooklyn by the secular children of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Schechter, 71, met Clinton in his capacity as an adviser to the student government and went on to become a beloved professor who wrote her a glowing recommendation to Yale Law School. As her thesis adviser, Schechter steered Clinton to focus her project on Saul Alinsky, the irascible labor and civil rights activist who pioneered the practice of community organizing with his Depression-era campaign to improve conditions in the Chicago slum made notorious by writer Upton Sinclair.

Her approach was “instrumental, pragmatic, how do you get from point A to point B,” said Schechter, who recently discussed with the Forward his most famous pupil and her 1969 senior project. “She wasn’t studying Alinsky because of her interest in Alinsky and not even, I think, because of her interest in community organizing as such. It was much more that he had a particular approach to poverty.”

With a title taken from a T.S. Eliot poem, Clinton’s thesis, “‘There Is Only the Fight…’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” takes a pragmatic approach to the issue of poverty alleviation. Her question is how best to help poor people in urban areas, and her approach is empirical rather than normative. The paper often takes a no-nonsense tone, as when Clinton sounds a skeptical note about the usefulness of “psychodramatics” in politics, or reminds her readers that discussing Alinsky “apart from his actions is like discussing current theories of international relations without mentioning Vietnam.”

read more: http://forward.com/news/12202/clinton-s-thesis-on-leftist-icon-reveals-roots-00926/

Never mind that there were no better alternative tactics available.

Nobody in Congress ever reads polite letters from poor people.

Wall-Street and its banksters are the biggest bigots out there and they are the ones financing Hillary's campaign.

Her ties to the Saudi ruling class one of the most racist and sexist governments on the planet.

She will say whatever it takes to be elected but her actions and her associations speak louder than her words.

so I stopped reading.

I can't even remember now if I wrote a thesis for my B.S., for my M.A. and what they were about.

It was on enviromental law. Jeebus jimminy, did it suck. It was awful. But i had to go to class everyday and once the weather got nice I played golf every day. Wrote it on three weekend nights, half drunk the last two.

This was hilarious. Thanks for sharing. (No snark. I love it)

Still, it was a major paper and an attack on Alinsky from well to his right. That's what calling on oppressed people st switch from protest to polite lobbying is.

thesis on Alinsky? It sure is not what you claim it is. At all. Saul offered her a job as a result of that paper, Ken.
When you do shit like that, Ken, the insult is to me, the reader who knows better. Do you think I'm an idiot to be preached at and who knows nothing? Why do you appoint yourself to do this? What are you qualifications? I sure don't see you stand up for minorities on DU, you are in the threads about the Pope cheering for the Pope.
You were very dismissive of minority people who expressed concerns about Liz Warren's 30 years of Republican loyalty, her lack of any actions to mitigate the evil she helped deliver to us under her hero, Ronald Reagan. So today, you want to talk about Hillary when she was too young to vote but you were dismissive of questions about Warren when she was in her 30's and 40's, a rich woman voting for vicious racists one after the other, supporting genocidal policies toward gay people. How does that work? How is one thing so important you make 'informative' OP's but the other so unimportant that even to ask about it is shouted down?
Here is your Warren thread. Here's the line that made me remember it, so McCarthyist it stuck in the head:
"Whatever the motivation of those who have raised the question, we probably should try to find out."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251367346


This sort of bullshit is bullshit, when it is dealt in double standards it is worse than bullshit, because double standards are the building blocks of bigotry.

Another hit piece on a candidate who is very likely to be the Democratic nominee. I'm supporting Bernie Sanders in the primary race, but writing inaccurate and biased attacks on another Democratic candidate is suspect, in my opinion. If Clinton is the nominee, I will be enthusiastically supporting her campaign. How could I do that if I were writing scurrilous attacks on her at this stage?

There's something very wrong going on here.

It wasn't aimed at the LGBTQ community at all.

And HRC is not the only Democrat who can win, nor better than Bernie on any anti-oppression issues.

Why throw in with her when she's only been on your side when the battle was already over?

No candidate that didn't back same-sex marriage until 2013(when backing it no longer counted for anything or neant anything) has any right to call herself gay-friendly...and certainly no right to claim to be any more progressive on anti-oppression issues than any other Dem.

And isn't even saying anyone should support her for president.

You aren't even responding to any of the points he made.

Did you even read what he posted ?

I think that was the message...your kind no longer has the right to express opinions.
Equality does not include you...we are all equal but some are more equal than others.

If only straight white guys had powerful positions in government to express themselves.

If one group is told to STFU for any reason it is the exact opposite of equality.
You don't right a wrong with a wrong. you perpetuate it.

Not

You can't be anti-oppression and support "pro-business economics". And you can't govern as a liberation president if you took Wall Street money during the campaign(as we've been constantly reminded by events since 2009).

You have to be for economic justice to have any chance of achieving social justice, because corporations are always going to need to maintain some levels of hatred and fear to keep people from uniting against them.

That's why LBJ couldn't really end bigotry.

That's why Obama can't either.

A woman should be president, fine-but why does it have to be a woman who agrees with Wall Street on economic policy and with Henry Kissinger on foreign policy?

It's not like Americans will only accept a female president if she's a hawk and a multimillionaire.

That has to hurt!

It's legitimate for groups facing oppression in this country to feel resentment at straight white guys for what some of us have done.

My point is that my views have nothing to do with my gender, my race, or my sexual orientation.

If I were a poc, if I was gay or bi or trans or questioning, if I was a woman, I would still hold the views I hold and would still back the candidates I support.

I supported Jesse Jackson and Harold Washington. I supported Bella Abzug. In hindsight, I wish that at age eleven I had backed Shirley Chisholm. I'd have supported Harvey Milk if I'd known of him during his too-short lifetime.

I'd like nothing more than to see white male privilege totally wiped out.

It's just that I can't see how backing the second-most conservative candidate for the Democratic nomination is no way to strike a blow against that privilege.

If gender were everything, Margaret Thatcher would have turned the UK into an anti-oppression Utopia.

You can only fight identity privilege if you run as an anti-establishment rebel.

I am sure you can take care of yourself.

But just because someone is feeling oppressed does not give them the right to tell others to STFU...IMO
I was defending free expression and equality for all, and too often some think the solution to the problem is to restrict the free expression of others to solve it.
It solves nothing, and in fact makes it worse. It justifies that which they say they hate.

But my political, social, and economic views have never been dictated by by identity, or my identities.

I'm a person of my background, but not limited or exclusively defined by that.

sentiment around DU and has been for a number of years? Anybody?

And it's shocking -- SHOCKING!!1one -- that in this environment, so many minority posters feel so besieged?

That whole thread was dreck but that one post really does crystallize one of the major schisms on this web site.

57 recs for this dishonest tripe.

... about what they're talking about

"...double standards are the building blocks of bigotry." Not only is this demonstrably true, and an important insight (which I've never seen spelled out in quite this way)--it's alliterative too!

I've tried to stay out of these internecine threads, but this post was just too good to pass by without comment.

Hell...might be best response of the month.

Not so good in political discussion, though, is it? I hate this kind of approach to primary campaigns. It's destructive. I don't like the social justice attacks on Bernie Sanders, either. His record is clear in those areas. Both he and Hillary Clinton are worthy of election to the presidency. They differ only in some ways, but would both do a good job as President.

We need to stop attacking our own candidates. That trick never works.

When someone posts a trolling thread on most other boards I usually use an image of a beautiful woman with a big fish but I don't use it here because it could be construed as sexist.

Anyone who starts out with the Goldwater girl crap, I could never take them seriously for anything they write.
It's lazy thinking.
The voting age then was 21. By the time she was voting age, she was a committed liberal Democrat.

Hell, I used to be religious when I was a teenager.

This is why.

Hateful hit pieces like this.

Ideology I like Sanders better than Clinton

But based on shit like this I'd rather just go undecided leaning Clinton because I actually like Hillary too.

Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Team Undecided GO DEMOCRATS!!!

That's me

Although I still could join Team Biden but I think that is a long shot he'll join the race. I live in Delaware and even we aren't hearing rumors here.